From Newsgroup: alt.bible

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

Churches use Mt 28:19,20 to 'prove' the Trinity. See if you can find
the Trinity here:

"19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen. "
(NKJV)

Yes, it names three things. OK, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. A common
saying. Then are they a Trinity also? But yes, they are a "trinity".
Notice some explanation:

"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or
things. (Merriam-Webster)

So there is a difference between a trinity and a Trinity.

So to get technical: In Mt 28:19,20 they are a trinity, but not a
Trinity. (:>)

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"
See jw.org 8/14/2025)



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Aug 14, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote (Message-ID:<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>):

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

Does it really matter given that you do not know what it means in the first place, and know nothing of the history of the word and or belief?

Churches use Mt 28:19,20 to 'prove' the Trinity. See if you can find
the Trinity here:

What rCLChurchesrCY? And does it matter since no religious organization can save anyone anyhow?

"19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen. "
(NKJV)

Yes, it names three things. OK, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. A common
saying. Then are they a Trinity also? But yes, they are a "trinity".
Notice some explanation:

It did not mention their names in that verse, and the three people you mentioned were not all related. You also ignored the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters all of whom were the offspring of Mary. And Joseph.

"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or
things. (Merriam-Webster)

So there is a difference between a trinity and a Trinity.

Nope, you still know nothing of which you speak.

So to get technical: In Mt 28:19,20 they are a trinity, but not a
Trinity. (:>)

You donrCOt understand being one flesh, one God, multiply that by three then it is way above your pay grade. :(

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"

When and what war?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 18:31:03 -0700, None <none@none.non> wrote:

On Aug 14, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote >(Message-ID:<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>):

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

Does it really matter given that you do not know what it means in the first >place, and know nothing of the history of the word and or belief?

Morningola,

I am just going what the Bible says, not the churches.

Churches use Mt 28:19,20 to 'prove' the Trinity. See if you can find
the Trinity here:

What oChurcheso?

Most all churches teach the Trinity. That's a fact.


And does it matter since no religious organization can

save anyone anyhow?

True, it is Jesus or Jehovah God who can save us. All a religious
organization can do is point to the right path.

Jesus said there is only 2 roads a person can take, not many roads.

One wide road leads to destruction. The narrow other, life eternal.
(Mt 7:13,14)

"19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen. "
(NKJV)

Yes, it names three things. OK, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. A common
saying. Then are they a Trinity also? But yes, they are a "trinity".
Notice some explanation:

It did not mention their names in that verse, and the three people you >mentioned were not all related. You also ignored the fact that Jesus had >brothers and sisters all of whom were the offspring of Mary. And Joseph.

We are talking about Mt 28:19,20, not Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Yes those mentioned in Mt 28:19,20 are all related. Jesus is God's
Son. (Luke 1:35; John 10:36) The Holy Spirit is God's active force for accomplishing things.

For example, God can pour it out. (Act's 2:17,18)

"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or
things. (Merriam-Webster)

So there is a difference between a trinity and a Trinity.

Nope, you still know nothing of which you speak.

I didn't make that up. That is the word experts Merriam-Webster who
did.

So to get technical: In Mt 28:19,20 they are a trinity, but not a
Trinity. (:>)

You donAt understand being one flesh, one God, multiply that by three then >it is way above your pay grade. :(

I don't get paid. (:>(

Enjoy your family.

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"

When and what war?

Go to jw.org to find out.

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"
See jw.org 8/15/2025)




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Aug 15, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote (Message-ID:<hj6u9kt54m0uqhvaa01kmpk4gqnci2kvgv@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 18:31:03 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:

On Aug 14, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote (Message-ID:<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>):

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

Does it really matter given that you do not know what it means in the first place, and know nothing of the history of the word and or belief?

Morningola,

I am just going what the Bible says, not the churches.

Unfortunately, you do not. What does the NWT speak about it? Or any other version.

Churches use Mt 28:19,20 to 'prove' the Trinity. See if you can find
the Trinity here:

What rCLChurchesrCY?

Most all churches teach the Trinity. That's a fact.

Have you followed any other than the RCC and the JWrCOs? No? Then how can you speak of things you know not as if you did? Plus here you *qualified* your previous statement which through them all into the same basket.

And does it matter since no religious organization can
save anyone anyhow?

True, it is Jesus or Jehovah God who can save us. All a religious organization can do is point to the right path.

Jesus said there is only 2 roads a person can take, not many roads.

That is a very distinctive lie, found nowhere in the scriptures, other than perhaps the corrupted NWT version which I would not touch, even with a ten foot pole.

rCLJesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.rCY (Jhn 14:6)

rCLThen said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might haveitmore abundantly.I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.rCY (Jhn 10:7-11)

One wide road leads to destruction. The narrow other, life eternal.
(Mt 7:13,14)

rCLEven so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.rCY (Mat 7:17-19)

"19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen. " (NKJV)

Yes, it names three things. OK, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. A common
saying. Then are they a Trinity also? But yes, they are a "trinity". Notice some explanation:

It did not mention their names in that verse, and the three people you mentioned were not all related. You also ignored the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters all of whom were the offspring of Mary. And Joseph.

We are talking about Mt 28:19,20, not Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Yet you brought them into the picture, for what point? Your confusion?

Yes those mentioned in Mt 28:19,20 are all related. Jesus is God's
Son. (Luke 1:35; John 10:36) The Holy Spirit is God's active force for accomplishing things.

That does not state why you mentioned three persons who were not part of the verse you used as a basis. WHY?

For example, God can pour it out. (Act's 2:17,18)

Your backpedaling is without excuse or knowledge. Ha not one thing to do with my question put to you. This is the typical way of the deceitful door
knockers when they are shown their lies and deceit.

In fact the last verses you quoted your cult denies. As the JW state that
only the 144K will receive, and they live only during the 7 year period of
the Great Tribulation that is to come upon the earth. Those people are all Jewish young virgin men. Not at all qualifying for the phrase rCLall peoplesrCY mention in those scriptures. And Romans 8:9-11 clearly states that anyone since the time of Jesus who has not the Holy Spirit within them, is
not of God. You need to come to grips with that teaching as given by the Lord lest you pass away in an unholy state.

"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or
things. (Merriam-Webster)

So there is a difference between a trinity and a Trinity.

Nope, you still know nothing of which you speak.

I didn't make that up. That is the word experts Merriam-Webster who
did.

Has nothing to do with the Bible, has nothing to do with the historical
usages of that word. Bu that I mean from the time before Christ as well as ever since. Since you are unaware of all that information from both God and man, how can you speak or try and teach others about it. Who are you parroting?

So to get technical: In Mt 28:19,20 they are a trinity, but not a Trinity. (:>)

You donrCOt understand being one flesh, one God, multiply that by three then
it is way above your pay grade. :(

I don't get paid. (:>(

Ambiguous statement. The payment you seek is the position of prestige of
other JW members in your church.

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"

When and what war?

Go to jw.org to find out.

Why? Because you know not of what you speak and understand not what they are trying to say?
I asked you because you are the blind trying to teach the blind. And thusly you just answered.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

========================================
Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:28:12 -0400
<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote:
========================================

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

You won't find "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the Bible either.

Meanwhile,

rCo The Bible has always taught that there is only one God
(Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Father is God (John 1:1-4,
18; 1 Corinthians 8:6).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Son is God (John 1:1; John
20:28; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts
5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:17).
--
Have you heard the good news Christ died for our sins (rCa), and God
raised Him from the dead?

That Christ died for our sins shows we're sinners who deserve the death penalty. That God raised Him from the dead shows Christ's death
satisfied God's righteous demands against our sin (Romans 3:25; 1 John
2:1-2). This means God can now remain just, while forgiving you of your
sins, and saving you from eternal damnation.

On the basis of Christ's death and resurrection for our sins, call on
the name of the Lord to save you: "For 'everyone who calls on the name
of the Lord will be saved'" (Romans 10:13, ESV).

https://christrose.news/salvation

To automatically receive daily Bible teaching updates with colorful
images and website formatting, subscribe to my feed in a client like Thunderbird:

https://www.christrose.news/feeds/posts/default
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 11:39:48 -0700, None <none@none.non> wrote:

On Aug 15, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote >(Message-ID:<hj6u9kt54m0uqhvaa01kmpk4gqnci2kvgv@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 18:31:03 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:

On Aug 14, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote
(Message-ID:<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>):

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

Does it really matter given that you do not know what it means in the first
place, and know nothing of the history of the word and or belief?

Morningola,

I am just going what the Bible says, not the churches.

Unfortunately, you do not. What does the NWT speak about it? Or any other >version.

Hello,

No Bible version I have seen has the Trinity in it.

Churches use Mt 28:19,20 to 'prove' the Trinity. See if you can find
the Trinity here:

What oChurcheso?

Most all churches teach the Trinity. That's a fact.

Have you followed any other than the RCC and the JWAs? No? Then how can you >speak of things you know not as if you did?

I have studied many Popular translations, And do not find the Trinity
in Them. The churches use those translations, so they teach things not
in the Bible,

Plus here you *qualified* your
previous statement which through them all into the same basket.

And does it matter since no religious organization can
save anyone anyhow?

True, it is Jesus or Jehovah God who can save us. All a religious
organization can do is point to the right path.

Jesus said there is only 2 roads a person can take, not many roads.

That is a very distinctive lie, found nowhere in the scriptures, other than >perhaps the corrupted NWT version which I would not touch, even with a ten >foot pole.

That is a shame, you bipass the best translation. First look up psalms
83:18 in the King James version. Then compare that with your Bible .
If your Bible says "Lord" there instead of Jehovah, your Bible has
eliminated the tetragrammaton in almost 6000 places.

Plus you need to apply your 10 foot rule to your translation as well.

oJesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh >unto the Father, but by me.o (Jhn 14:6)

Yes, that eliminates most of the religions of the world .Jesus also
said to love your enemies. That eliminates most of christendom's
religions since they send their flock to war to kill.

oThen said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the >door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but >the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he >shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh >not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might >have life, and that they might haveitmore abundantly.I am the good shepherd: >the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.o (Jhn 10:7-11)

One wide road leads to destruction. The narrow other, life eternal.
(Mt 7:13,14)

oEven so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree >bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither >can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth >good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.o (Mat 7:17-19)

Yes as Jesus said, you'll know them by their fruits.

"19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen. "
(NKJV)

Yes, it names three things. OK, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. A common
saying. Then are they a Trinity also? But yes, they are a "trinity".
Notice some explanation:

It did not mention their names in that verse, and the three people you
mentioned were not all related. You also ignored the fact that Jesus had >> > brothers and sisters all of whom were the offspring of Mary. And Joseph. >>

We are talking about Mt 28:19,20, not Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Yet you brought them into the picture, for what point? Your confusion?

I am not the one that is confused. I did not write that about Jesus'
brothers and sisters.

Yes those mentioned in Mt 28:19,20 are all related. Jesus is God's
Son. (Luke 1:35; John 10:36) The Holy Spirit is God's active force for
accomplishing things.

That does not state why you mentioned three persons who were not part of the >verse you used as a basis. WHY?

I didn't.

For example, God can pour it out. (Act's 2:17,18)

Your backpedaling is without excuse or knowledge. Ha not one thing to do with >my question put to you. This is the typical way of the deceitful door >knockers when they are shown their lies and deceit.

JW's are fulfilling Matthew 24:14 Worldwide as we speak.

In fact the last verses you quoted your cult denies. As the JW state that >only the 144K will receive, and they live only during the 7 year period of >the Great Tribulation that is to come upon the earth.

Megatron's. You have been listening to the wrong anti JW web page .
The 144,000 started with Jesus and it's still going on to today. They
will rule with Christ Jesus in heaven, to rule over the earth. So
there must be people on earth to rule over.

Those people are all
Jewish young virgin men.

You are in the symbolic Book of Revelation, so not everything is
literal.


Not at all qualifying for the phrase oall

peopleso mention in those scriptures. And Romans 8:9-11 clearly states that >anyone since the time of Jesus who has not the Holy Spirit within them, is >not of God. You need to come to grips with that teaching as given by the Lord >lest you pass away in an unholy state.

I come to grips with all the scriptures.

"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or
things. (Merriam-Webster)

So there is a difference between a trinity and a Trinity.

Nope, you still know nothing of which you speak.

I didn't make that up. That is the word experts Merriam-Webster who
did.

Has nothing to do with the Bible, has nothing to do with the historical >usages of that word. Bu that I mean from the time before Christ as well as >ever since. Since you are unaware of all that information from both God and >man, how can you speak or try and teach others about it. Who are you >parroting?

Do you know All that information?

So to get technical: In Mt 28:19,20 they are a trinity, but not a
Trinity. (:>)

You donAt understand being one flesh, one God, multiply that by three then >> > it is way above your pay grade. :(

I don't get paid. (:>(

Ambiguous statement. The payment you seek is the position of prestige of >other JW members in your church.

Wrong again. You do not know me.

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"

When and what war?

Go to jw.org to find out.

Why? Because you know not of what you speak and understand not what they are >trying to say?
I asked you because you are the blind trying to teach the blind. And thusly >you just answered.

Believe what you wish.

At any rate, may Jehovah bless your day. (really)

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"
See jw.org 8/15/2025)


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

========================================
Sat, 02 Aug 2025 23:07:33 -0400
<b5it8kp35q6pb04ol2bludd4k415agivlt@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote:
========================================

No Bible version I have seen has the Trinity in it.

You won't find "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the Bible either.

Meanwhile,

rCo The Bible has always taught that there is only one God
(Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Father is God (John 1:1-4,
18; 1 Corinthians 8:6).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Son is God (John 1:1; John
20:28; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts
5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:17).
--
Have you heard the good news Christ died for our sins (rCa), and God
raised Him from the dead?

That Christ died for our sins shows we're sinners who deserve the death penalty. That God raised Him from the dead shows Christ's death
satisfied God's righteous demands against our sin (Romans 3:25; 1 John
2:1-2). This means God can now remain just, while forgiving you of your
sins, and saving you from eternal damnation.

On the basis of Christ's death and resurrection for our sins, call on
the name of the Lord to save you: "For 'everyone who calls on the name
of the Lord will be saved'" (Romans 10:13, ESV).

https://christrose.news/salvation

To automatically receive daily Bible teaching updates with colorful
images and website formatting, subscribe to my feed in a client like Thunderbird:

https://www.christrose.news/feeds/posts/default
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Aug 16, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote (Message-ID:<6251ak1vi2c9hlbllp9qcn7rt21qo4kuci@4ax.com>):

On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 11:39:48 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:

On Aug 15, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote (Message-ID:<hj6u9kt54m0uqhvaa01kmpk4gqnci2kvgv@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 18:31:03 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:

On Aug 14, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote (Message-ID:<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>):

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows come home. You won't find it.

*******************

Does it really matter given that you do not know what it means in the first place, and know nothing of the history of the word and or belief?

*******************

Morningola,

I am just going what the Bible says, not the churches.

Unfortunately, you do not. What does the NWT speak about it? Or any other version.

Hello,

No Bible version I have seen has the Trinity in it.

Read between the asterisks above. That is what I was speaking about and asked you.
Are you so well trained in deceit when you door knock, that it has seared
your mind when you try to shape the narrative to ignore what people say and speak only the false teachings of the JW?

Churches use Mt 28:19,20 to 'prove' the Trinity. See if you can find the Trinity here:

What rCLChurchesrCY?

Most all churches teach the Trinity. That's a fact.

Have you followed any other than the RCC and the JWrCOs? No? Then how can you speak of things you know not as if you did?

I have studied many Popular translations, And do not find the Trinity
in Them. The churches use those translations, so they teach things not
in the Bible,

Again, I was speaking of rCLchurchesrCY but you responded with bibles. Thus shifting the narrative.

Plus here you *qualified* your
previous statement which through them all into the same basket.

And does it matter since no religious organization can
save anyone anyhow?

True, it is Jesus or Jehovah God who can save us. All a religious organization can do is point to the right path.

Jesus said there is only 2 roads a person can take, not many roads.

That is a very distinctive lie, found nowhere in the scriptures, other than perhaps the corrupted NWT version which I would not touch, even with a ten foot pole.

That is a shame, you bipass the best translation. First look up psalms
83:18 in the King James version. Then compare that with your Bible .
If your Bible says "Lord" there instead of Jehovah, your Bible has
eliminated the tetragrammaton in almost 6000 places.

If it was the best, then why do you use and reference all the others? Why
keep on shifting the narrative, you did not address you lie that there are
two paths to God?

Why create chaos? That is satanic.

Plus you need to apply your 10 foot rule to your translation as well.

What I read is guided by the spirit of God. Your translations and your posts all use the name rCLJehovahrCY which according to your daffyinition is
totally incorrect as there is no rCLJrCY in the Hebrew language at that time. It would have been Yehovah. Yet you all keep using that Jehovah, even in your church name.
Why the hypocritical stance?

rCLJesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.rCY (Jhn 14:6)

Yes, that eliminates most of the religions of the world .Jesus also
said to love your enemies. That eliminates most of christendom's
religions since they send their flock to war to kill.

It eliminates ALL religions of the world. Even the cults.
What churches do you personally know of that sends their flocks off to war
and kill?
Name three, as well as their send off commands.

rCLThen said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the
door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but
the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might
have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.I am the good shepherd:
the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.rCY (Jhn 10:7-11)

I noticed you did not agree with the scripture.

One wide road leads to destruction. The narrow other, life eternal.
(Mt 7:13,14)

rCLEven so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither
can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.rCY (Mat 7:17-19)

Yes as Jesus said, you'll know them by their fruits.

Yes, bad and good. The bad he will throw into the fire. You know,...the place of eternal torment?

"19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen. " (NKJV)

Yes, it names three things. OK, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. A common saying. Then are they a Trinity also? But yes, they are a "trinity". Notice some explanation:

It did not mention their names in that verse, and the three people you mentioned were not all related. You also ignored the fact that Jesus had
brothers and sisters all of whom were the offspring of Mary. And Joseph.

We are talking about Mt 28:19,20, not Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Yet you brought them into the picture, for what point? Your confusion?

I am not the one that is confused. I did not write that about Jesus'
brothers and sisters.

You are the one who is totally confused. You spoke of Jesus Mary and Joseph. It cannot be unseen. Again, their names were not in that verse you reference so I printed them out for all to see. I mentioned that you forgot about the rest of the family, why? And Joseph was not the birth father of Jesus. Yet
you brought them into the picture, why?

Yes those mentioned in Mt 28:19,20 are all related. Jesus is God's
Son. (Luke 1:35; John 10:36) The Holy Spirit is God's active force for accomplishing things.

That does not state why you mentioned three persons who were not part of the
verse you used as a basis. WHY?

I didn't.

Again, you did, it is there in plain sight for all to see, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. And had not one thing to so with the scripture you associated them with.
It is easy to see how you try very hard to reshape the narrative.

For example, God can pour it out. (Act's 2:17,18)

Your backpedaling is without excuse or knowledge. Ha not one thing to do with my question put to you. This is the typical way of the deceitful door knockers when they are shown their lies and deceit.

JW's are fulfilling Matthew 24:14 Worldwide as we speak.

Not at all. They are all spreading a false Gospel, one that is accursed, per Paul. Paul who knows that there is only one way to heaven.

In fact the last verses you quoted your cult denies. As the JW state that only the 144K will receive, and they live only during the 7 year period of the Great Tribulation that is to come upon the earth.

Megatron's. You have been listening to the wrong anti JW web page .
The 144,000 started with Jesus and it's still going on to today. They
will rule with Christ Jesus in heaven, to rule over the earth. So
there must be people on earth to rule over.

I have observed you cultist doctrine for decades. What you said is not only not to be found in any bible, especially the NWT. Again your statement is in full confusion. There are no 2000 year old group of 144K people.

Those people are all
Jewish young virgin men.

You are in the symbolic Book of Revelation, so not everything is
literal.

Then according to you, those 144K are also symbolic and may never exist. And anyone who takes away from the book of Revelation or adds to it, their names will be removed from those that go to heaven. Which would referencing ALL of the JW org adherents. Have you no fear of God?

Not at all qualifying for the phrase rCLall
peoplesrCY mention in those scriptures. And Romans 8:9-11 clearly states that
anyone since the time of Jesus who has not the Holy Spirit within them, is not of God. You need to come to grips with that teaching as given by the Lord
lest you pass away in an unholy state.

I come to grips with all the scriptures.

Then you accept willingly that fact that you may very well be going to hell and from there to the Lake of Fire due to what you believe and teach?

"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things. (Merriam-Webster)

So there is a difference between a trinity and a Trinity.

Nope, you still know nothing of which you speak.

I didn't make that up. That is the word experts Merriam-Webster who
did.

Has nothing to do with the Bible, has nothing to do with the historical usages of that word. By that I mean from the time before Christ as well as ever since. Since you are unaware of all that information from both God and man, how can you speak or try and teach others about it. Who are you parroting?

Do you know All that information?

Most of it, as the Lord led me to it decades ago.

So to get technical: In Mt 28:19,20 they are a trinity, but not a Trinity. (:>)

You donrCOt understand being one flesh, one God, multiply that by three then it is way above your pay grade. :(

I don't get paid. (:>(

Ambiguous statement. The payment you seek is the position of prestige of other JW members in your church.

Wrong again. You do not know me.

Oh but I do. 30 years worth, or more. I remember far more of what you have stated over the years than do you. Even in this thread you have shown you cannot remember what you said from one moment to the next.

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"

When and what war?

Go to jw.org to find out.

Why? Because you know not of what you speak and understand not what they are
trying to say?
I asked you because you are the blind trying to teach the blind. And thusly you just answered.

Believe what you wish.

I wish better of you, but the truth of you is what you say and cannot defend with knowledge.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:45:44 -0500, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:

========================================
Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:28:12 -0400
<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote:
========================================

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

You won't find "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the Bible either.

See Isa 43:10-12. In your Bible, substitute "Lord" for "YHWH", or
"Jehovah", or Yahweh for better accuracy, since your translation has
removed the greatest name in the universe averaging 6000 times.

Meanwhile,

o The Bible has always taught that there is only one God
(Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

o The Bible has always taught that the Father is God (John 1:1-4,
18; 1 Corinthians 8:6).

o The Bible has always taught that the Son is God (John 1:1;

Erroneous passage. Greek rule not applied there. Should be "a god" or
something similar.

John
20:28;

- New King James
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my
God!''

"Holy smoke"!, "Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!, "Great Caesar's
ghost!" (from the old superman series)

We say a shorten version of what Thomas said: "Oh my God!" He probably
Would have said the same thing if a dead relative suddenly showed up.
So it's just an expression of surprise.

Titus 2:13;

- New King James
Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our
great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

You can take it two ways. One is your way, that Jesus is God. The
second way: Concerning Titus 2:13. It is true that there is only one
definite article "the" used before the two nouns "God,Savior" which
are connected by the conjunction "and". But even the footnote in the
popular NASB translation shows this passage can be rendered,

"[1]Or the great God and our Savior"

Thus showing two distinct persons here.

The same grammatical construction is found at 2 Thess 1:12 but here
the NASB and NIV Bibles insert the definite article "the" before the
second noun "Lord". It reads,

"so that the *name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you
in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ."
(NASB)

(The NIV agrees with the NASB as the preferred text, but has a
footnote showing it the other way.)

Also Paul back one chapter showed that Jesus and God were two distinct
persons.
Titus 1:4.

"To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God
the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. (NIV)

Even the NIV and NASB insert the definite article "the" before a noun
when it is not in original text, such as at 1 Ti 4:10.



Hebrews 1:8).

- American Standard
Hebrews 1:8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy
kingdom.

There seems to be differences of opinion on the translation.
concerning Hebrews 1:8. Is the word "God" in this verse referring to
Jesus or God Almighty.? The Apostle Paul here is quoting Ps 45:3-7
and then applying verses 6,7 to Jesus. Notice the context by verse 9
"therefore God, your God" shows that the person in verse 8 is one who
is anointed by God and one who worships God.

Also, the first application of Ps 45:3-7 was to King David who
foreshadowed Jesus Christ and was said to sit on God's throne. (1 Ch
29:23) Was the writer making the first application calling David,
Almighty God? Not likely. That is why the translation "Your throne, O
God," can also correctly be rendered "God is your throne" because
there is no verb "is" in the original Hebrew or Greek documents, thus
it is up to the translators to insert it. Since He 1:8 is quoting
Psalm 45:6 then He 1:8 can also be rendered "God is your throne".

o The Bible has always taught that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts
5:3-4;

3. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie
to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for
yourself?
4. "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold,
was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in
your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.'' (NKJV)

The Bible says God poured out his Holy Spirit . So it is God who Is
the primary person behind the Holy Spirit. You can't pour out a person
can you?

2 Corinthians 3:17).

-- New King James
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit
of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Which Lord? The Lord God, or the Lord Jesus? Notice

- American Standard
Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me; because
Jehovah hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath
sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the
captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

I don't recall ever reading that the Spirit of Jesus is upon me, etc.
Thus the "Lord" there is Jehovah.

Have a great evening.

Sincerely James
"Jesus will end war"
See jw.org 8/16/2025)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

zebrabible@proton.me Wrote in message:r

The Trinity and the Holy BibleYou won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cowscome home. You won't find it.Churches use Mt 28:19,20 to 'prove' the Trinity. See if you can findthe Trinity here:"19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizingthem in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen. "(NKJV)Yes, it names three things. OK, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. A commonsaying. Then are they a Trinity also? But yes, they are a "trinity".Notice some explanation:"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons orthings. (Merriam-Webster)So there is a difference between a trinity and a Trinity.So to get technical: In Mt 28:19,20 they are a trinity, but not aTrinity. (:>)Sincerely James"Jesus will end war"See jw.org 8/14/2025)

Are u still off your marbles jw
--
Daniel
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

========================================
Sat, 02 Aug 2025 23:07:33 -0400
<b5it8kp35q6pb04ol2bludd4k415agivlt@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote:
========================================

On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:45:44 -0500, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:

========================================
Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:28:12 -0400
<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote:
========================================

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

You won't find "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the Bible either.

See Isa 43:10-12. In your Bible, substitute "Lord" for "YHWH", or
"Jehovah", or Yahweh for better accuracy, since your translation has
removed the greatest name in the universe averaging 6000 times.

Notice:

rCo He has no answer for the fact that "Jehovah's Witnesses" is not
found in the Bible.

rCo Yet when someone he doesn't agree with uses any word that's not
found in the Bible, he immediately slaps quotes on it and it
becomes his "First of all" argument standard that their view is
not taught by the Bible as he seeks to lead others away from
it.

rCo Meanwhile, "Jehovah's Witnesses", isn't in the Bible. Either
renounce it as being something not taught by the Bible, or stop
pretending like using words that aren't in the Bible
necessitates that teaching is not in the Bible. You don't get
to have it both ways, while claiming to be "sincere" and not an
hypocrite.

rCo The Bible also doesn't use the word "missions", yet it clearly
teaches that the church practiced what we refer to as
"missions", whether it uses that exact word or not. So this
double-standard tactic of trying to disqualify other's teaching
because some word they use isn't found in the Bible, is shown
to be an hypocritical falsehood.

Meanwhile,

rCo The Bible has always taught that there is only one God
(Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Father is God (John 1:1-4,
18; 1 Corinthians 8:6).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Son is God (John 1:1;

Erroneous passage.

Now you're claiming the passage itself is erroneous? The passage is not erroneous. It is the word of God. Meanwhile, it is the NWT PERVERSION of
the passage which is erroneous.

rCo The Greek does NOT use "a" god. It says "god". Notice again the
double standard above. When someone else mentions a word that
is not in the Bible, he slaps quote marks on it and expects
people to believe this shows that teaching is not in the Bible.
Then when faced with the fact that the Greek does not say "a"
god, he insists it must mean that, even though the Bible
doesn't say it!

rCo Unless you start with the predetermined goal and intent to
insist that Bible cannot be allowed to confirm that Jesus is
God under any circumstances, the English is not "unclear",
"lacking", or "misleading" without adding "a". Further, the
context clearly shows it is referring to Jesus as God. He made
"all" things, and without him not "anything" was made that was
made.

Greek rule not applied there. Should be "a god" or
something similar.

What "Greek rule"? There is no "Greek rule" which requires this passage
to say "a god". You simply (and repeatedly) INSERT words into the Bible
which are NOT THERE, which are NOT REQUIRED in English for it to make
sense, and which contradict the clear context of the passage which shows
it means Jesus is God.

And note the hypocrisy. He tries to dismiss "Trinity" as something not
taught by the Bible because the word "trinity" is "NOT THERE". Yet when
faced with a passage which says Jesus was "God" in the beginning, He
tries to deny it by insisting it must include a word ("a") which is NOT
THERE! Sorry, hypocrite! You don't get to play that hypocrite game with
me and pretend to have any credibility or sincerity.

Observe,

John 1:1 is carefully written so that no one can twist it into saying
Jesus is rCLa god.rCY

The verse has three parts:

1. rCLIn the beginning was the WordrCY (1:1a). The Word already existed
before creation, which rules out Jesus being a created being.
2. rCLThe Word was with GodrCY (1:1b). Here John distinguishes the Word from God the FatherrCotwo persons in relationship.
3. rCLThe Word was GodrCY (1:1c). Here John declares the nature of the Word.

Grammatically, in Greek the word with the article (b+U ++-i+|++-e, rCLthe WordrCY)
is the subject. The word without the article (+++|-i-e, rCLGodrCY) is the predicate. That means John isnrCOt saying rCLGod was the WordrCY (which would confuse the persons), but rCLthe Word was GodrCY (describing what the Word
is by nature).

Now notice how John phrases it. If he had used the article twicerCob+U +++|-i-e
b+a++ b+U ++-i+|++-erCohe would have collapsed the distinction he just made in verse
1:1b. That would make the Word and the Father the same person. But John
avoids that by dropping the article on +++|-i-e. In Greek, when a predicate comes before the verb and lacks the article, it normally describes the
essence or quality of the subject, not an indefinite category. So rCL+++|b++-e b+a++ b+U ++-i+|++-erCY means, rCLthe Word was fully God in nature.rCY

Context confirms this. Just a few verses later John writes, rCLAll things
were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was
maderCY (1:3, ESV). If the Word made everything, then He cannot be part of
the created order. He is on the Creator side of the CreatorrCocreature divide.

And John 1:18 seals it: rCLNo one has ever seen God; the only God, who is
at the FatherrCOs side, he has made him knownrCY (ESV). John is not
presenting rCLa godrCY alongside the Father. He is presenting the eternal Word, who is God by nature, yet personally distinct from the Father.

Put simply: JohnrCOs grammar rules out rCLa god.rCY His context rules out rCLa god.rCY His whole prologue declares that the Word shares the full divine nature while remaining distinct from the Father.

GoodrCoJohn 4:24 is one of the clearest parallels to John 1:1.

John 4:24 (Greek): -C+++|b+a+++# b+U +++|-i-e.
Word for word: rCLspirit is the God.rCY

Now hererCOs the grammar:

rCo b+U +++|-i-e has the article, so it is the subject: rCLGod.rCY
rCo -C+++|b+a+++# (rCLspiritrCY) is anarthrous (no article) and comes before the
verb. That makes it the predicate nominative, describing GodrCOs nature.

So we translate: rCLGod is spirit,rCY not rCLGod is a spirit.rCY The point is about His essence, not about Him being one spirit among many.

This is the exact same structure as John 1:1c (+++|b++-e b+a++ b+U ++-i+|++-e).

rCo b+U ++-i+|++-e has the article, so it is the subject: rCLthe Word.rCY
rCo +++|-i-e is anarthrous and comes before the verb, making it the predicate nominative, describing the WordrCOs essence.

So we translate: rCLthe Word was God,rCY not rCLthe Word was a god.rCY

Context confirms this in both passages:

rCo In John 4:24, the point is about GodrCOs very naturerCothat He is not confined to one place, but is spirit in essence.
rCo In John 1:1, the point is about the WordrCOs very naturerCothat He is not a creature but shares the eternal, divine essence.

The grammar is identical, and the translation rule is the same. If
someone insists that John 1:1 must be rCLa god,rCY then consistency demands John 4:24 be rendered rCLa spirit.rCY But no one translates it that way, because the grammar does not mean that.

HererCOs a short list of other New Testament verses with the exact same grammatical pattern as John 1:1c and John 4:24rCoan anarthrous predicate nominative placed before the verb. In each case, the predicate describes
the nature or identity of the subject, not rCLarCY something:

1. John 4:24 rCo -C+++|b+a+++# b+U +++|-i-e raA rCLGod is spiritrCY (not rCLa spiritrCY).
2. 1 John 4:8 rCo b+U +++|b++-e b+C+|+4-C++ b+E-a-a+>++ raA rCLGod is loverCY (not rCLa loverCY).
3. 1 John 4:16 rCo b+U +++|b++-e b+C+|+4-C++ b+E-a-a+>++ raA rCLGod is loverCY (same as above).
4. John 1:14 rCo ++-i+|++-e -ab+#-U++ b+E+|+!+++|-a++ raA rCLthe Word became fleshrCY (not rCLa fleshrCY).

In every case where the predicate noun comes before the verb without an article, translators consistently render it in a qualitative or definite senserConever rCLa [something]rCY unless the context demands indefiniteness.

So when John 1:1 says +++|b++-e b+a++ b+U ++-i+|++-e, the grammar and the pattern of
usage show the meaning: rCLThe Word was God in essence.rCY

John
20:28;

- New King James
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my
God!''

"Holy smoke"!, "Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!, "Great Caesar's
ghost!" (from the old superman series)

This shows that even when the Bible directly calls Jesus God, this tool
will STILL try to twist it to mean something OTHER than God. Watchtower
HERESY starts from the position that there is NO ALLOWANCE for the Bible
to teach that Jesus is God, then repeatedly alters, adds words, and
reads INTO the Bible (eisegesis) whatever LIES are necessary to make it
appear as if the Bible conforms to their own Bible-contradicting,
soul-damning deception.

We say a shorten version of what Thomas said: "Oh my God!" He probably
Would have said the same thing if a dead relative suddenly showed up.
So it's just an expression of surprise.

Your STUPID lies ignore the obvious context that refute them. Jesus had
just told him, rCLDo not disbelieve, but believerCY (John 20:27, ESV). ThomasrCOs reply, rCLMy Lord and my God!rCY (John 20:28, ESV), is exactly thatrCohis expression of belief.

If it were just a gasp like people say when startled, Jesus would have corrected him. Instead, Jesus affirmed it by responding, rCLHave you
believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen
and yet have believedrCY (John 20:29, ESV).

That seals itrCoThomasrCOs words are not profanity or surprise. They are saving faith.

So no, sorry, ThomasrCOs words in John 20:28 cannot be brushed off as a
mere exclamation of surprise. The context shows it is a direct
confession of faith.

Titus 2:13;

- New King James
Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our
great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

You can take it two ways. One is your way, that Jesus is God. The
second way: Concerning Titus 2:13. It is true that there is only one
definite article "the" used before the two nouns "God,Savior" which
are connected by the conjunction "and". But even the footnote in the
popular NASB translation shows this passage can be rendered,

"[1]Or the great God and our Savior"

rCoGrammatically unsound. Titus 2:13 is one of several New Testament
verses that follow what Greek grammarians call the Granville Sharp rule.
The rule states that when two singular, personal, nonrCoproper nouns are joined by rCLandrCY (+|+#+>) and governed by one article, they refer to the same person.

Titus 2:13 (in the Greek):
-ab+|++ +++#+|+#-U+>+#++ b+E++-C+>+|+# +|+#b+| b+E-C+|-a+4+++|+|+#++ -ab+a-e +|-i++++-e -a++b+a +++|+|+4++++-a +++|++b+a +|+#b+|
-a-e-ab+a-U++-e b+i++b+|++ b++++-a++b+a +o-U+|-a-a++b+a

Literally: rCLthe blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God
and Savior Jesus Christ.rCY

Points that prove Paul is calling Jesus both God and Savior:

1. Single article, two nouns. There is only one definite article (-a++b+a, rCLtherCY) governing both rCLGodrCY (+++|++b+a) and rCLSaviorrCY (-a-e-ab+a-U++-e). According to
the Granville Sharp rule, this identifies one person, not two.

2. Consistent usage in Paul. When Paul distinguishes between God the
Father and Jesus, he always uses separate articles or structures (for
example, 1 Timothy 1:1). He never conflates them in the same construction.

3. Parallel passages. The same grammatical construction is used
elsewhere, such as 2 Peter 1:1: rCLthe righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus ChristrCY (-a++b+a +++|++b+a b+i++b+|++ +|+#b+| -a-e-ab+a-U++-e b++++-a++b+a +o-U+|-a-a++b+a). No ambiguity
exists thererCoPeter is plainly calling Jesus rCLour God and Savior.rCY

4. The context. The entire section of Titus 2 is centered on the saving
work of Christ, rCLwho gave himself for us to redeem usrCY (2:14). The
subject is Jesus, not a sudden shift to the Father.

As for the NASBrCOs footnote, translators sometimes add alternate
renderings to acknowledge other interpretive traditions, not because the
Greek is unclear. The Greek construction only points one direction: Paul
calls Jesus rCLour great God and Savior.rCY

Would you like me to lay out every NT passage where this same Greek
structure occurs so you can see how consistent it is?

rCLwaiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great
God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from
all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own
possession who are zealous for good works.rCY (Titus 2:13rCo14, ESV)

Thus showing two distinct persons here.

Idem. No, it does not. We aren't waiting for the appearing of God the
Father, but of Jesus Christ. It NAMES "Jesus Christ" as our "great God
and Savior".
--
Have you heard the good news Christ died for our sins (rCa), and God
raised Him from the dead?

That Christ died for our sins shows we're sinners who deserve the death penalty. That God raised Him from the dead shows Christ's death
satisfied God's righteous demands against our sin (Romans 3:25; 1 John
2:1-2). This means God can now remain just, while forgiving you of your
sins, and saving you from eternal damnation.

On the basis of Christ's death and resurrection for our sins, call on
the name of the Lord to save you: "For 'everyone who calls on the name
of the Lord will be saved'" (Romans 10:13, ESV).

https://christrose.news/salvation

To automatically receive daily Bible teaching updates with colorful
images and website formatting, subscribe to my feed in a client like Thunderbird:

https://www.christrose.news/feeds/posts/default
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

========================================
Sat, 02 Aug 2025 23:07:33 -0400
<b5it8kp35q6pb04ol2bludd4k415agivlt@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote:
========================================

You won't find "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the Bible either.

See Isa 43:10-12. In your Bible, substitute "Lord" for "YHWH", or
"Jehovah", or Yahweh for better accuracy, since your translation has
removed the greatest name in the universe averaging 6000 times.

How many times is this hypocrite going to expose his own, stupid hypocrisy?

Observe. How many times does the NWT translate YHWH as YHWH, or even
Yahweh? Zero. You know that. Don't pretend like you make these
hypocritical claims out of ignorant sincerity. You consistently try to disqualify and poison people's minds against what others believe, based
on standards that your own beliefs and NWT "translation" do not meet.
The NWT doesn't use YHWH or Yahweh. It INCORRECTLY uses "Jehovah",
THOUSANDS OF TIMES. Then you PRETEND that not using "Jehovah" means our translations are in error but somehow NOT the NWT!

Meanwhile, the disciples, in their inspired New Testament writings,
accepted Lb|A-Cb|a (kurios) as an acceptable translation of God's name from the LXX, and applied it to Jesus Christ:

1. Joel 2:32 raA Romans 10:13

rCo Joel 2:32 (LXX): rCLEveryone who calls on the name of the LORD
(*Kurios*) will be saved.rCY

rCo Romans 10:13: rCLEveryone who calls on the name of the LORD
(*Kurios*) will be saved.rCY

Paul applies this to Jesus in Romans 10:9, identifying Him as the
*Kurios* on whom we call for salvation.

2. Isaiah 45:23 raA Philippians 2:10rCo11

rCo Isaiah 45:23 (LXX): rCLTo Me every knee shall bow, every tongue
shall confess to God.rCY

rCo Philippians 2:10rCo11: rCLAt the name of Jesus every knee should
bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD
(*Kurios*).rCY

Paul applies this passage about YHWH to Jesus, calling Him *Kurios*.

3. Deuteronomy 6:4 raA 1 Corinthians 8:6

rCo Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX): rCLThe LORD (*Kurios*) our God, the LORD
(*Kurios*) is one.rCY

rCo 1 Corinthians 8:6: rCLYet for us there is one God, the Father...
and one LORD (*Kurios*), Jesus Christ.rCY

Paul affirms monotheism and includes Jesus as *Kurios* within the divine identity.

4. Psalm 34:8 raA 1 Peter 2:3

rCo Psalm 34:8 (LXX): rCLTaste and see that the LORD (*Kurios*) is
good.rCY

rCo 1 Peter 2:3: rCLIf indeed you have tasted that the LORD
(*Kurios*) is good.rCY

Peter quotes the psalm about YHWH and applies it to Jesus as *Kurios*.

5. Isaiah 8:13rCo14 raA 1 Peter 3:15; Romans 9:33

rCo Isaiah 8:13: rCLBut the LORD (*Kurios*) of hosts, Him you shall
honor as holy...rCY

rCo 1 Peter 3:15: rCLHonor Christ the LORD (*Kurios*) as holy in your
hearts.rCY

rCo Isaiah 8:14: rCLAnd He will become a sanctuary and a stone of
stumbling...rCY

Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8 apply this stumbling stone to Christ,
identifying Him as the *Kurios*.

6. Psalm 102:25rCo27 raA Hebrews 1:10rCo12

rCo Psalm 102:25 (LXX): rCLYou, LORD (*Kurios*), laid the foundation
of the earth in the beginning.rCY

rCo Hebrews 1:10: rCLYou, LORD (*Kurios*), laid the foundation of the
earth in the beginning.rCY

The writer explicitly says this was spoken rCLof the Son,rCY identifying
Jesus as *Kurios*.

7. Deuteronomy 10:17 raA Revelation 19:16

rCo Deuteronomy 10:17 (LXX): rCLFor the LORD (*Kurios*) your God is
God of gods and LORD (*Kurios*) of lords.rCY

rCo Revelation 19:16: rCLKing of kings and LORD (*Kurios*) of lords.rCY

The title for YHWH is applied to Jesus, who bears the name *Kurios* of all.

The New Testament authors consistently affirm *Kurios* as the proper translation of YHWH and deliberately apply passages about the *Kurios*
of the Old Testament to Jesus Christ.
--
Have you heard the good news Christ died for our sins (rCa), and God
raised Him from the dead?

That Christ died for our sins shows we're sinners who deserve the death penalty. That God raised Him from the dead shows Christ's death
satisfied God's righteous demands against our sin (Romans 3:25; 1 John
2:1-2). This means God can now remain just, while forgiving you of your
sins, and saving you from eternal damnation.

On the basis of Christ's death and resurrection for our sins, call on
the name of the Lord to save you: "For 'everyone who calls on the name
of the Lord will be saved'" (Romans 10:13, ESV).

https://christrose.news/salvation

To automatically receive daily Bible teaching updates with colorful
images and website formatting, subscribe to my feed in a client like Thunderbird:

https://www.christrose.news/feeds/posts/default
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Aug 16, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote (Message-ID:<eh22aktpm6o1q041g4tips1k61gaip7pnb@4ax.com>):

On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:45:44 -0500, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:

========================================
Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:28:12 -0400 <bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote: ========================================

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

You won't find "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the Bible either.

See Isa 43:10-12. In your Bible, substitute "Lord" for "YHWH", or
"Jehovah", or Yahweh for better accuracy, since your translation has
removed the greatest name in the universe averaging 6000 times.

Ah HA! Hated to admit the errors of the JW. Org and the NWT, and so you make
a like hearted excuse for your previous mistake? Yahweh, not Yehovah? What is yrCOalls excuse for that previous error?

Meanwhile,

rCo The Bible has always taught that there is only one God
(Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Father is God (John 1:1-4,
18; 1 Corinthians 8:6).

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Son is God (John 1:1;

Erroneous passage. Greek rule not applied there. Should be "a god" or something similar.

John
20:28;

- New King James
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my
God!''

"Holy smoke"!, "Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!, "Great Caesar's
ghost!" (from the old superman series)

We say a shorten version of what Thomas said: "Oh my God!" He probably
Would have said the same thing if a dead relative suddenly showed up.
So it's just an expression of surprise.

Titus 2:13;

- New King James
Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our
great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

You can take it two ways. One is your way, that Jesus is God. The
second way: Concerning Titus 2:13. It is true that there is only one
definite article "the" used before the two nouns "God,Savior" which
are connected by the conjunction "and". But even the footnote in the
popular NASB translation shows this passage can be rendered,

"[1]Or the great God and our Savior"

Thus showing two distinct persons here.

The same grammatical construction is found at 2 Thess 1:12 but here
the NASB and NIV Bibles insert the definite article "the" before the
second noun "Lord". It reads,

"so that the *name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you
in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ."
(NASB)

(The NIV agrees with the NASB as the preferred text, but has a
footnote showing it the other way.)

Also Paul back one chapter showed that Jesus and God were two distinct persons.
Titus 1:4.

"To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God
the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. (NIV)

Even the NIV and NASB insert the definite article "the" before a noun
when it is not in original text, such as at 1 Ti 4:10.

Hebrews 1:8).

- American Standard
Hebrews 1:8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy
kingdom.

There seems to be differences of opinion on the translation.
concerning Hebrews 1:8. Is the word "God" in this verse referring to
Jesus or God Almighty.? The Apostle Paul here is quoting Ps 45:3-7
and then applying verses 6,7 to Jesus. Notice the context by verse 9 "therefore God, your God" shows that the person in verse 8 is one who
is anointed by God and one who worships God.

Also, the first application of Ps 45:3-7 was to King David who
foreshadowed Jesus Christ and was said to sit on God's throne. (1 Ch
29:23) Was the writer making the first application calling David,
Almighty God? Not likely. That is why the translation "Your throne, O
God," can also correctly be rendered "God is your throne" because
there is no verb "is" in the original Hebrew or Greek documents, thus
it is up to the translators to insert it. Since He 1:8 is quoting
Psalm 45:6 then He 1:8 can also be rendered "God is your throne".

rCo The Bible has always taught that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts
5:3-4;

3. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie
to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for
yourself?
4. "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold,
was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in
your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.'' (NKJV)

The Bible says God poured out his Holy Spirit . So it is God who Is
the primary person behind the Holy Spirit. You can't pour out a person
can you?

2 Corinthians 3:17).

-- New King James
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit
of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Which Lord? The Lord God, or the Lord Jesus? Notice

- American Standard
Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me; because
Jehovah hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath
sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the
captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

I don't recall ever reading that the Spirit of Jesus is upon me, etc.
Thus the "Lord" there is Jehovah.

Where is your usage of the NWT so as to prove that you are correct in everything you state?

More accusation, no proof that you are correct.

Why did the Jews use the word rCLtheosrCY for God? Get 1:20

Why did the Jews use the word rCLkuriosrCY for rCLYehovahrCY Gen18:17

Why Does the JW use the word rCLJehovahrCY for rCLYehovahrCY ever since they started up their cult?

Sincerely James

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:53:31 -0500, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:

========================================
Sat, 02 Aug 2025 23:07:33 -0400
<b5it8kp35q6pb04ol2bludd4k415agivlt@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote:
========================================

On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:45:44 -0500, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:

========================================
Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:28:12 -0400
<bqus9kl6pfsuj5i15oqcra1s5777tksjr8@4ax.com>
"Sincerely", "soley from the Bible" and
"Honestly is my middle name"
James <zebrabible@proton.me> wrote:
========================================

The Trinity and the Holy Bible

You won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cows
come home. You won't find it.

You won't find "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the Bible either.

See Isa 43:10-12. In your Bible, substitute "Lord" for "YHWH", or
"Jehovah", or Yahweh for better accuracy, since your translation has
removed the greatest name in the universe averaging 6000 times.

Notice:

o He has no answer for the fact that "Jehovah's Witnesses" is not
found in the Bible.

As I showed you above, Their name was taken from Isaiah 43:10-12. So
it is Bible based.

o Yet when someone he doesn't agree with uses any word that's not
found in the Bible, he immediately slaps quotes on it and it
becomes his "First of all" argument standard that their view is
not taught by the Bible as he seeks to lead others away from
it.

Your statement is as clear as mud.

o Meanwhile, "Jehovah's Witnesses", isn't in the Bible. Either
renounce it as being something not taught by the Bible, or stop
pretending like using words that aren't in the Bible
necessitates that teaching is not in the Bible. You don't get
to have it both ways, while claiming to be "sincere" and not an
hypocrite.

As smart as you are, surprisenly since you are unable to figure it
out, here is the scripture:

"10. Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have
chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he:
before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour.
12. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there
was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith
Jehovah, and I am God. " (Isa 43:10-12)

Can't you see it now? "ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah,", or in
other words they were; Jehovah's Witnesses.

o The Bible also doesn't use the word "missions", yet it clearly
teaches that the church practiced what we refer to as
"missions", whether it uses that exact word or not. So this
double-standard tactic of trying to disqualify other's teaching
because some word they use isn't found in the Bible, is shown
to be an hypocritical falsehood.

I never said that since the word Trinity is not found in the Bible,
that proves my case. Actually, it doesn't help its case either. The
Trinity is a failed attempt to promote, and is illogical. And no Bible character ever described such a ridiculous thing.

Meanwhile,

o The Bible has always taught that there is only one God
(Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

o The Bible has always taught that the Father is God (John 1:1-4,
18; 1 Corinthians 8:6).

o The Bible has always taught that the Son is God (John 1:1;

Erroneous passage.

Now you're claiming the passage itself is erroneous? The passage is not >erroneous. It is the word of God.

It actually is the translators interpretation of the word of God. They
didn't follow the Greek grammar rules in that verse seeing that the
word "theos" is used twice in that verse
and one has the definite article "the" before it, the other does not.
That's why some other translations say:


"what God was, the Word was." (NE); [see below]
"the Logos was divine." (MO);
"the Word was divine." (AT; SD);
"a god was the Word." (interlinear ED) ;
"the Word was a god" (NTIV).

Professor C.H. Dodd who was director of the translation of the New
English Bible, said concerning John 1:1 that a possible translation
would read, "The Word was a god", and that as a word for word
rendering it could not be faulted. But when his Bible was released,
the passage read "...and what God was, the Word was." The Professor
stated the reason he used the latter rendering was that the first
rendering ran against the current Johannine thought and Christian
thought as a whole. Thus, his personal beliefs influenced his
translation.


Meanwhile, it is the NWT PERVERSION of

the passage which is erroneous.

And your translation is perfection at the highest, by chopping out the Tetragrammaton in almost 7000 places, and sticking in "Lord" or "God"?

o The Greek does NOT use "a" god. It says "god". Notice again the
double standard above. When someone else mentions a word that
is not in the Bible, he slaps quote marks on it and expects
people to believe this shows that teaching is not in the Bible.
Then when faced with the fact that the Greek does not say "a"
god, he insists it must mean that, even though the Bible
doesn't say it!

And Your Bible translation sticks in words not in the original scrolls
and manuscripts around 7000 times, and you condemn our 1 time "a"
there? Go figure.

o Unless you start with the predetermined goal and intent to
insist that Bible cannot be allowed to confirm that Jesus is
God under any circumstances, the English is not "unclear",
"lacking", or "misleading" without adding "a". Further, the
context clearly shows it is referring to Jesus as God. He made
"all" things, and without him not "anything" was made that was
made.

It was God who created all things (Gen 1:1), BUT He did so THROUGH
Jesus. Yes, without Jesus, God would not have apparently created
anything.

Greek rule not applied there. Should be "a god" or
something similar.

What "Greek rule"? There is no "Greek rule" which requires this passage
to say "a god". You simply (and repeatedly) INSERT words into the Bible >which are NOT THERE, which are NOT REQUIRED in English for it to make
sense, and which contradict the clear context of the passage which shows
it means Jesus is God.

Don't be so surprised Bible words have been changed. Recall the
Septuagint of the 4th century, which has removed the divine name
completely. There has been tampering with the Bible starting long ago.
But today, they are dotting their I's, and crossing their T's and
removing errors that have crept in as the researching continues.

As for the Greek rule, in that sentence, Here is some meat to
consider. I don't claim to understand every word here, but enough to
get the point being made:

"o In John 1:1 the term "god" is applied to both the Father and the
Son, the Word. But in the Greek text the word for "god" (theos) is
written differently in these two instances. Why? What does it mean?
To a person unfamiliar with the Greek language it might seem that
there is a significance indicated by the fact that first the word is
spelled theon and next theos. But the difference is simply a matter of complying with the Greek grammatical case used.
John 1:1 reads: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was
with God [<G<t|n>G> <G<qe|n>G>, literally, the god], and the Word was
a god [<G<qe|V>G>]."
Greek has five cases-nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and
vocative. How a word is spelled can vary depending on the case in
which it is used. Take, as an example, the definite article "the." In
the masculine gender "the" is respectively written in the first four
of these cases: <G<+>G>, <G<to+>G>, <G<t+>G>, <G<t|n>G>, in the
singular number.
Similarly, in John 1:1 the word theos is spelled in accord with the
particular case being employed. In the first instance ("the Word was
with God") it is in the accusative case and thus is spelled <G<qe|n>G>
But in the second occurrence it is in the nominative case, and so it
is spelled <G<qe|V>G>. The spelling of theos does not of itself
indicate the person or position of the one designated, as 2
Corinthians 4:4, 6 illustrates. In <G<]>G>2 Co 4 <G<#>G>verse four
Satan is identified as <G<qe|V>G>, "the god of this system of things,"
and in <G<]>G>2 Co 4 <G<#>G>verse six the Creator is designated
<G<qe|V>G>. The spelling is theos in both verses, for the nominative
case is used in each. So the fact that theos is spelled differently in
its two occurrences in John 1:1 does not show any difference in
meaning; "god" is the meaning in both instances."
(From JW publication)
"

And note the hypocrisy. He tries to dismiss "Trinity" as something not >taught by the Bible because the word "trinity" is "NOT THERE". Yet when >faced with a passage which says Jesus was "God" in the beginning, He
tries to deny it by insisting it must include a word ("a") which is NOT >THERE! Sorry, hypocrite! You don't get to play that hypocrite game with
me and pretend to have any credibility or sincerity.

I usually don't get this extreme, but that is a blatent lie. I never
said that about the "Trinity" and you know it. Prove it. quote a
conversation where I said that. You can't, because you won't find one.
I am surprised you lowered yourself to this.

Observe,

John 1:1 is carefully written so that no one can twist it into saying
Jesus is oa god.o

The verse has three parts:

1. oIn the beginning was the Wordo (1:1a). The Word already existed
before creation,

It says BEGINNING. God had no beginning. (Ps 90:2). Jesus did. (Col
1:15)

which rules out Jesus being a created being.
2. oThe Word was with Godo (1:1b). Here John distinguishes the Word from
God the Fatherutwo persons in relationship.

Yes it mentions two persons, not two persons in one person.

3. oThe Word was Godo (1:1c). Here John declares the nature of the Word.

(see above for extensive discussion on John 1:1)

Grammatically, in Greek the word with the article (? ?????, othe Wordo)
is the subject. The word without the article (????, oGodo) is the
predicate. That means John isnAt saying oGod was the Wordo (which would >confuse the persons), but othe Word was Godo (describing what the Word
is by nature).

Now notice how John phrases it. If he had used the article twiceu? ????
?? ? ?????uhe would have collapsed the distinction he just made in verse >1:1b. That would make the Word and the Father the same person. But John >avoids that by dropping the article on ????. In Greek, when a predicate >comes before the verb and lacks the article, it normally describes the >essence or quality of the subject, not an indefinite category. So o????
?? ? ?????o means, othe Word was fully God in nature.o

Context confirms this. Just a few verses later John writes, oAll things
were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was
madeo (1:3, ESV). If the Word made everything, then He cannot be part of
the created order. He is on the Creator side of the Creatorucreature divide.

And John 1:18 seals it: oNo one has ever seen God; the only God, who is
at the FatherAs side, he has made him knowno (ESV). John is not
presenting oa godo alongside the Father. He is presenting the eternal
Word, who is God by nature, yet personally distinct from the Father.

Put simply: JohnAs grammar rules out oa god.o His context rules out oa
god.o His whole prologue declares that the Word shares the full divine >nature while remaining distinct from the Father.

GooduJohn 4:24 is one of the clearest parallels to John 1:1.

John 4:24 (Greek): ?????? ? ????.
Word for word: ospirit is the God.o

Now hereAs the grammar:

u ? ???? has the article, so it is the subject: oGod.o
u ?????? (ospirito) is anarthrous (no article) and comes before the
verb. That makes it the predicate nominative, describing GodAs nature.

So we translate: oGod is spirit,o not oGod is a spirit.o The point is
about His essence, not about Him being one spirit among many.

This is the exact same structure as John 1:1c (???? ?? ? ?????).

u ? ????? has the article, so it is the subject: othe Word.o
u ???? is anarthrous and comes before the verb, making it the predicate >nominative, describing the WordAs essence.

So we translate: othe Word was God,o not othe Word was a god.o

Context confirms this in both passages:

u In John 4:24, the point is about GodAs very natureuthat He is not
confined to one place, but is spirit in essence.
u In John 1:1, the point is about the WordAs very natureuthat He is not
a creature but shares the eternal, divine essence.

The grammar is identical, and the translation rule is the same. If
someone insists that John 1:1 must be oa god,o then consistency demands
John 4:24 be rendered oa spirit.o But no one translates it that way,
because the grammar does not mean that.

HereAs a short list of other New Testament verses with the exact same >grammatical pattern as John 1:1c and John 4:24uan anarthrous predicate >nominative placed before the verb. In each case, the predicate describes
the nature or identity of the subject, not oao something:

1. John 4:24 u ?????? ? ???? ? oGod is spirito (not oa spirito).
2. 1 John 4:8 u ? ???? ????? ????? ? oGod is loveo (not oa loveo).
3. 1 John 4:16 u ? ???? ????? ????? ? oGod is loveo (same as above).
4. John 1:14 u ????? ???? ??????? ? othe Word became flesho (not oa flesho).

In every case where the predicate noun comes before the verb without an >article, translators consistently render it in a qualitative or definite >senseunever oa [something]o unless the context demands indefiniteness.

So when John 1:1 says ???? ?? ? ?????, the grammar and the pattern of
usage show the meaning: oThe Word was God in essence.o

What is interesting is that in John 1:1 the definite article <G<+>G>
[ho] is not used in front of theos when applied to the Son, the Word.
Regarding this point the noted Bible translator William Barclay
writes:
"Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the
definite article in front of them, . . . When a Greek noun has not got
the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a
noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say: 'James is the
man', then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in
mind; but, if I say: 'James is man', then I am simply describing James
as human, and the word man has become a description and not an
identification. If John had said ho theos "en ho logos, using a
definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos [the Word] with God, but because he has no
definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more
of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it
rather clumsily, 'The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to
the same order of being as God'. . . . John is not here identifying
the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus
was God."-Many Witnesses, One Lord (1963), pages 23, 24.

Hence, in both their translations Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed and Dr. James
Moffatt render the phrase as, "the Word [or Logos] was divine." This
reflects the fine distinction in wording that the apostle John used, a distinction that accords with the fact that Jesus was not equal in
power and eternity with the Father but was the created Son of the
Father. (1 Cor. 11:3) The New World Translation accurately renders the <G<]>G>Joh 1 <G<#>G>verse<G<]>G> 1<G<#>G>: "In [the] beginning the
Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
(1977 Watchtower, 5/15, p. 320.)

Concerning "Word was a god", can the original word be grammatically
translated as "a god", instead of "god"? The original word that
translates it is "theos". Can theos be correctly translated as "a
god"? Yes, according to Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible.
He gives these possible definitions of theos:

"God, a god, object of worship." (p.419, col 3, #8)

The Bible translator William Barclay gets into specifics when he says
that when a Greek noun doesn't have the definite article in front of
it it becomes a description (like an adjective) rather than an
identity (like a noun) and the second "theos" has no article.

Many times, the doctrinal beliefs of the translators (not what the
original words say) dictate as to how the translation would read. For
example, Professor C.H. Dodd who was director of the translation of
the New English Bible, said concerning John 1:1 that a possible
translation would read, "The Word was a god", and that as a word for
word rendering it could not be faulted. But when his Bible was
released, the passage read "...and what God was, the Word was." The
Professor stated the reason he used the latter rendering was that the
first rendering ran against the current Johannine thought and
Christian thought as a whole. Thus, his personal beliefs influenced
his translation.

Does the NIV and NASB Bible ever insert the indefinite article "a"
under similar Greek grammatical structures even when it is not in the
original? Yes. Look at John 8:44. In the original Greek it is like
John 1:1 where the predicate nouns (murderer,lie (liar)) come before
the verb and have no definite article. Yet they insert the indefinite
article "a" for clarity.
"a murderer" (NASB,NIV); "a lie" (NASB) and "a liar" (NIV). John 8:44
poses no threat to doctrinal beliefs so the article can be inserted.
But in John 1:1 inserting it draws away from the long held Trinity
belief just as Professor Dodd found himself up against.

So, why didn't the NWT insert the word "a" in brackets like they did
the word "the"? Because in the original Greek there was no indefinite
article "a" anywhere. Try reading the NT with all the a's removed. It
would make it quite cumbersome. So it is common practice for
translators to just insert "a" into the original text for clarity of
our language. All the Bibles do it when they feel it belongs there.

"Why do some Bible translations refer to Jesus as "God," while others
say he was "a god"?

Some translations render John 1:1 as saying: "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Literally the
Greek text reads: "In beginning was the word, and the word was toward
the god, and god was the word." The translator must supply capitals as
needed in the language into which he translates the text. It is
clearly proper to capitalize "God" in translating the phrase "the
god," since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word
was. But the capitalizing of the word "god" in the second case does
not have the same justification.

The New World Translation renders this text: "In the beginning the
Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." True,
there is no indefinite article (corresponding to "a" or "an") in the
original Greek text. But this does not mean one should not be used in translation, for Koine, or common Greek, had no indefinite article.
Hence, throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures, translators are
obliged to use the indefinite article or not according to their
understanding of the meaning of the text. All English translations of
those Scriptures do contain the indefinite article hundreds of times;
yet most do not use it at John 1:1. Nevertheless, its use in the
rendering of this text has sound basis.

First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was
"with God," hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God.
(Note also Joh 1 vs 2, which would be unnecessary if Joh 1 vs 1
actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for "god"
(Gr., the+os') in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly
without the definite article "the" (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact,
Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6),
stated: "[the+os'] and [ho the+os'] ('god, divine' and 'the God') were
not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . .
Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' ([ho the+os']; cf. Joh 17:3);
'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14:28). But that is only
hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the
proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in
Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10
proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being,
who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians
and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities."-John 1,
translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110.

...Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in
John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun
without the definite article "the," preceding the verb, which
construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that
"the logos has the nature of theos." He further stated: "In John 1:1 I
think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that
the noun [the+os'] cannot be regarded as definite." (Journal of
Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also
recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes
the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: "the Word was
divine."-AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579." (Insight on
the Scripures, Vol 2, p. 53,54)

Thus the way the NWT translated Joh 1:1 is grammatically sound. It put
"the" in brackets because the definite article "the" does exist in the
Koine Greek, and so when inserted into the passage, a distinction
should be made. But the NWT did like all other Bibles do when putting
in the indefinite article "a" into the text and didn't use brackets,
since the word "a" does not appear in the Koine Greek anywhere.

As you can see, there are other interpretations of John 1:1.
As for the rest of the Bible, there is no Trinity described.

Sincerely James
"Coping With Rising Prices?
uManage Your Funds Wisely"
See jw.org 8/22/2025)




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 11:40:55 -0700 (PDT), teslaStinker <service@truecarpentry.org> wrote:

zebrabible@proton.me Wrote in message:r

The Trinity and the Holy BibleYou won't find the Trinity in the Bible. You can look till the cowscome home. You won't find it.Churches use Mt 28:19,20 to 'prove' the Trinity. See if you can findthe Trinity here:"19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizingthem in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'' Amen. "(NKJV)Yes, it names three things. OK, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. A commonsaying. Then are they a Trinity also? But yes, they are a "trinity".Notice some explanation:"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons orthings. (Merriam-Webster)So there is a difference between a trinity and a Trinity.So to get technical: In Mt 28:19,20 they are a trinity, but not aTrinity. (:>)Sincerely James"Jesus will end war"See jw.org 8/14/2025)

Are u still off your marbles jw

Still there to collect perries.

Sincerely James
"Coping With Rising Prices?
uManage Your Funds Wisely"
See jw.org 8/22/2025)


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.bible

On Aug 22, 2025, zebrabible@proton.me wrote (Message-ID:<bs6iakhi3v8jgc5f3c26ncj4f0dbb5i51q@4ax.com>):

"10. Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have
chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he:
before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour.

Did you read this? Is not Jesus our Savior? And the word is rCLyehovahrCY Not the Latin word.

12. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there
was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith
Jehovah, and I am God. " (Isa 43:10-12)

These words are to be taken in the light of the full context of the scripture in this chapter.

rCLThis people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise. But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense. Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied
me with thine iniquities.rCY (Isa 43:21-24)

Under no sense are you Israel, neither are you a Jew, and this speaks of a people who also sacrificed and or held back their sacrifice to Yehovah.

It does not speak of the 144K, It speaks of Israel.

You cannot pull one straw out of a bale of straw and call it rCOthe truthrCO.

Can't you see it now? "ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah,", or in
other words they were; Jehovah's Witnesses.

And according to your word play Jehovah is not Yehovah, but Jehovah is of the latin RC definition a religion that you oppose.

Can you see?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2