The trinity of three scriptures destroys the myth of the Trinity:

[No*s]

I can tell you just what is a very bad translation. The NEW WORLD Translation has to be about the worst. It actually slants the biblical understand by applying extreme interpretations in order to achieve JW doctrinal application.

"....was a god..." still makes me wince.:areyoucra

The worst thing about that translation...it's technically valid, but it's used in a way that runs contrary to the book of John .

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

I am NOT defending any one translation as there is no PERFECT translation. All most all translations are defective to because of either translator bias, lack of idiomatic ancient language usage, lack of translator skills, lack of access to all ancient MSs, etc. Some more so than others. In English, I have found the following to be the most accurate - the New English Bible (NEB), The New World Translation (NWT), An American Translation (AAT), American Standard Version (ASV), and an interlingua lexicon of the New Testament by Dr. J.J. Griesbach [a word for word translation of the Koine Greek in the Vatican MS 1209 into English]. I am constantly comparing one translation with others, not only in English, but in my native language and others. I have found in the inspired 66 books that there is better than 95% agreement in substance between translations even if the wording may vary. Recently I have been quoting a lot from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible as many readers are Catholic; before this I quoted mainly from the American Standard Version (ASV). As the late Dr. Edgar Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago and the head of the translation committee that translated An American Translation (AAT) once said, the way of judging a translation is whether the translators were consistent in rendering translational constructs and/or similar translational constructs the same in all cases or whether they rendered certain passages using the same and/or similar translational constructs at different places different to placate their biases.



Your opinion of the New World Translation (NWT) is like your opinions on doctrine, NOT in accordance with fact. Furthermore, it shows that you have no concept with respect the differences between a literal translation such as the New World Translation (NWT), Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), MS Vatican 1209, and free flowing translations such as the American Standard Version (ASV), the New English Bible (NEB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), etc. Also, you have no concept of how experts in the field quantify the quality of a translation. Dr. Jason Benuhn, of Northern Arizona University and Dr. Rolf Furuli, of the University of Oslo, the two leading Bible translation and ancient language experts in the world strongly disagree with you. In fact, Dr. Jason Benuhn has written a book comparing the leading modern Bible translations with one another and specifically citing the translational shortcomings of each, “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament” published by University Press of America, isbn# 0761825568. The problem is so many express unfounded opinions on both Bible translations and doctrine that they do not have the foggiest knowledge of the facts on. This is patently ridicules and dishonest. I for my part do not do such things, I go out and research the facts and then do not present opinions, but the facts based on my research.



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[LittleNipper]

Hi Everyone

I am NOT defending any one translation as there is no PERFECT translation. All most all translations are defective to because of either translator bias, lack of idiomatic ancient language usage, lack of translator skills, lack of access to all ancient MSs, etc. Some more so than others. In English, I have found the following to be the most accurate - the New English Bible (NEB), The New World Translation (NWT), An American Translation (AAT), American Standard Version (ASV), and an interlingua lexicon of the New Testament by Dr. J.J. Griesbach [a word for word translation of the Koine Greek in the Vatican MS 1209 into English]. I am constantly comparing one translation with others, not only in English, but in my native language and others. I have found in the inspired 66 books that there is better than 95% agreement in substance between translations even if the wording may vary. Recently I have been quoting a lot from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible as many readers are Catholic; before this I quoted mainly from the American Standard Version (ASV). As the late Dr. Edgar Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago and the head of the translation committee that translated An American Translation (AAT) once said, the way of judging a translation is whether the translators were consistent in rendering translational constructs and/or similar translational constructs the same in all cases or whether they rendered certain passages using the same and/or similar translational constructs at different places different to placate their biases.



Your opinion of the New World Translation (NWT) is like your opinions on doctrine, NOT in accordance with fact. Furthermore, it shows that you have no concept with respect the differences between a literal translation such as the New World Translation (NWT), Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), MS Vatican 1209, and free flowing translations such as the American Standard Version (ASV), the New English Bible (NEB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), etc. Also, you have no concept of how experts in the field quantify the quality of a translation. Dr. Jason Benuhn, of Northern Arizona University and Dr. Rolf Furuli, of the University of Oslo, the two leading Bible translation and ancient language experts in the world strongly disagree with you. In fact, Dr. Jason Benuhn has written a book comparing the leading modern Bible translations with one another and specifically citing the translational shortcomings of each, “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament” published by University Press of America, isbn# 0761825568. The problem is so many express unfounded opinions on both Bible translations and doctrine that they do not have the foggiest knowledge of the facts on. This is patently ridicules and dishonest. I for my part do not do such things, I go out and research the facts and then do not present opinions, but the facts based on my research.



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

And your "facts" are the opinions of others. I see no Biblical understanding and no Scriptural references. The NEW WORLD translation is a doctrinely bias translation (if indeed translation can even be applied to it). The King James is still one of the very best translations. It is inferior to no other English translation.

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

Those who know nothing with respect how to judge translations make sweeping statements such as the following:

And your "facts" are the opinions of others. I see no Biblical understanding and no Scriptural references. The NEW WORLD translation is a doctrinely bias translation (if indeed translation can even be applied to it). The King James is still one of the very best translations. It is inferior to no other English translation."

But as previously shown, NONE of the real experts in the field, the Late Dr. Edgar Goodspeed,




Etc. say this. In fact, part of what I previously said,

Your opinion of the New World Translation (NWT) is like your opinions on doctrine, NOT in accordance with fact. Furthermore, it shows that you have no concept with respect the differences between a literal translation such as the New World Translation (NWT), Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), MS Vatican 1209, and free flowing translations such as the American Standard Version (ASV), the New English Bible (NEB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), etc. Also, you have no concept of how experts in the field quantify the quality of a translation. Dr. Jason Benuhn, of Northern Arizona University and Dr. Rolf Furuli, of the University of Oslo, the two leading Bible translation and ancient language experts in the world strongly disagree with you. In fact, Dr. Jason Benuhn has written a book comparing the leading modern Bible translations with one another and specifically citing the translational shortcomings of each, “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament” published by

University Press of America, isbn# 0761825568. The problem is so many express unfounded opinions on both Bible translations and doctrine that they do not have the foggiest knowledge of the facts on. This is patently ridicules and dishonest. I for my part do not do such things, I go out and research the facts and then do not present opinions, but the facts based on my research.

He charges me with expressing opinions, but I have only dealt with what the experts say, and STRANGE he is the one expressing his unlearned opinion. Note, how derogatory he expresses it with out any backing, a clear sign of someone who does not know what he is talking about.



I do not go around downing translations, but as you are all aware, I use many different translations. Negative individuals have negative opinions.



For the facts on the Authorized King James (AV), go to:



On King James Biblehttp://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=38.topic



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Scuba Pete]

Little Nipper,

There are a couple things to watch for in any debate (and YES, this is a debate)...

"It is clearly shown..."

and

"I use only the facts..."

These are two of many methods used to try and shut other people up and to stop the free exchange of ideas. They are used repeatedly by those who have no imagination and who have already closed their minds to the possibility that the real "truth" might lie outside of their ken. The poll should be a great tip-off as to the intent of this thread. It was not created to discuss, but to preach.

I have asked repeatedly just where "It is clearly shown..." in the scriptures that those people who believe in the Trinity are going to hell. To date, I have not been given a single scripture that CLEARLY indicates this. I have since realized that "It is clearly shown..." really means "I don't have a clue what I am talking about!". Of course, your opinion may vary.

It is also true that there are many opinions given and then defended with an "I use only the facts...". This is to be expected when the person is merely regurgitating the research and knowledge of others. They seem to have semi-deified their teacher to the point of being where this person does not seem capable of mistake. This is not healthy and definitely not God honoring. Consequently when I see "I use only the facts..." I think they really mean "My mind is made up, please don't confuse me with the facts..." I am sure if you substitute these phrases as needed, the real message comes shining through!

I do think it is unfortunate that man has taken upon himself to label that which God did not feel a need to. The precise relationship betwixt God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is so beyond our understanding that it appears we have resorted to a gross oversimplification. However, in a misguided zeal, there are those who would condemn this "oversimplification" as more than an attempt to truly understand God. We ALL do this at some point, yes even those who "use only the facts". In their quest for doctrinal "purity" they have forgone the true freedom we have in Christ.

I make it a habit to reflect on a Proverb that Jesus kept repeating, and that made an impression on the Apostles as well. I do this any time I would try to impose "God's will" on another human being...

"I desire mercy and not sacrifice"​

​

This should help to put things in perspective!​

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone



FIRST, Some posters are so confused that they do not even comprehend what they are talking about. For example, I have never said anyone was going to hell. I am definitely not the judge and the scriptures clearly show that Almighty God (YHWH) has given that job to his son at 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, "But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (American Standard Version; ASV). In fact, the group saying such things are fundamentalist and I have written an article on them showing their error, and I am DEFINITELY not one of them. Now let's see how confused this poster is by reviewing what he said:

I have asked repeatedly just where "It is clearly shown..." in the

scriptures that those people who believe in the Trinity are going to

hell. To date, I have not been given a single scripture that CLEARLY

indicates this. I have since realized that "It is clearly shown..."

really means "I don't have a clue what I am talking about!". Of

course, your opinion may vary.

Clearly he is mixed up as I have never said anything of the kind, nor has he ever asked me such a question. Obviously he is way out in left field somewhere without a paddle. It is called confused thinking.



SECOND, This same poster that is entirely confused with respect to hell, and what I said, said the following derogatory opinion.

It is also true that there are many opinions given and then defended

with an "I use only the facts...". This is to be expected when the

person is merely regurgitating the research and knowledge of others.

They seem to have semi-deified their teacher to the point of being

where this person does not seem capable of mistake. This is not

healthy and definitely not God honoring. Consequently when I see "I

use only the facts..." I think they really mean "My mind is made up,

please don't confuse me with the facts..." I am sure if you

substitute these phrases as needed, the real message comes shining

through!

He overlooks the obvious, I do not give opinions as he does, but I go out and search out the facts and post them instead of opinions. This is clearly shown by the many scriptures I use which I fully reference with respect Bible translation and verse as intellectual honesty demands, and I reference sources on quotes. Also, in many cases I list sources of information, often books by renown experts in their field of expertise.



THIRD, I have no interest in debates as he alleges and do NOT post on the debate board. However some moderator moved several of my post to the debate board, but that in no way means I have an interest in debating which I thing is silly. My interest is in assisting all in learning Biblical and historical facts, and this is what I post.



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

The whole idea of a doctrine is alien to me... If it is sound principle, it needs no doctrine

 

[iris89]

Hi Reverend JeremiahI agree with you. I hold to no creed. I follow the Bible all the way, not halfway, the Bible is entirely consistent when you comprehend it - both NT & OT - and practical for our day.

To learn more about why creeds and doctrines are wrong, go to the following:

Trinity, the Facts

http://www.network54.com/Forum/388928

STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1108382158&lp=1108382158

Civilization & the Bible

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1108382063&lp=1108382063

Details on Bible Canon:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=388559&messageid=1108381517&lp=1108381780

THE ACCOUNTS OF THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/390732

The Ransom

http://www.network54.com/Forum/389818

FAITH

http://www.network54.com/Forum/391113

TRUE CHRISTIANS VS COUNTERFEIT CHRISTIANS:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/390021

Information on Hell

http://www.network54.com/Forum/391202

Discourse on Repentance:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=389147&messageid=1108509243&lp=1108509399

Jesus (Yeshua) the Prophet Foretold by Moses

http://www.network54.com/Forum/391561

Jesus (Yeshua) the Individual

http://www.network54.com/Forum/391186

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Hi Reverend JeremiahI agree with you. I hold to no creed. I follow the Bible all the way, not halfway, the Bible is entirely consistent when you comprehend it - both NT & OT - and practical for our day.

This is where we will disagree, I do not consider the scripture to be consistent, comprehendable, nor practical for our day.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

[angel888]

Topic is: Should Christians believe in false doctrine. Since I am christian and should be allowed to answer this question since the rules say it must have Christian in the topic I will respond.

Revjeremiah: Said This is where we will disagree, I do not consider the scripture to be consistent, comprehendable, nor practical for our day.


Why Not.?? And if you are a true Atheist why are you on a religious forum.?

You are soul seeking., which is good, most Christians do agree upon the same interpretations of the bible. Its the new age sects and fundamentalist groups that do not.

Also why is an Atheist allowed to question the trinity and respond negative to the Godhead and not get warned from the moderators.

Its seems when I responded in the Atheist forums I get warned, dont seem like the moderators play fair or the rules only apply to some.

Angel

 

[Green Gaia]

Angel: there are different forums here and each has specific rules. If you are confused about this, please contact a moderator or administrator, or ask a question instead of impugning the integrity of the entire moderating staff.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Iris,

This issue has been settled in Chrisitanity for almost two millenia. I reccommend a study of the Nichene and Athanatian creeds available at www.ccel.org/fathers2 as well as Eusebius's Church History for more rationale as to why Christians exclude those who do not confess the unity of God. I am sure that No*s is going to offer some excellent advice.

EDIT: I must add that most of us will remember that the doctrine of the Trinity as settled at Nicea and later Councils was not a debate over whether or not the Trinity existed, but rather how the three persons related to one another. That is, no one denied that we have three characters that need to be dealt with: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The real issue was the divinity of Jesus. Everyone knew that the Father was God and the Holy Spirit, they just had to iron out by reason how the divinity of Jesus worked out while preserving the monotheistic faith. The doctrine of the Trinity was the solution, and like the canon of Scripture, we have not seen fit to change it in any way since the Athanatian Creed. We have always taught that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit were God, but we had to clarify ourselves because of various heresies.

Blessings,
Nathan

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So then, love and being all things to all men is out the window? I only ask because some people use such a "Holy Crusade" to justify inflicting wounds and being intolerant. They focus on a few irrellevant issues and forget Jesus' words: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice".

However, if you would like to discuss scripture in the tradition of Jesus then I would stop the heaps upon heaps of outside references that few will follow, and start relating to people from a human standpoint. I guess it depends on whether you want to merely condemn others (sorta like the pharisees) or have a genuine OPEN dialogue (sorta like Jesus and the apostles).

Right on!! Please consider this an honorary frubaling. I have been too selective lately

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hi Everyone

God is a title and is singular in form, and is properly applied only to Almighty God (YHWH) as clearly shown at Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (American Standard Version; ASV)

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Elohim is plural, and it is used of God in many OT texts. It should be fairly easy to find in Strong's, but that is why we get the "we" in Gen 1. Several trinitarians cite this as a precursor to the Trinity. The Hebrew understanding, of course, is that God is plural in majesty, which is a nice precursor to plural in person. I am aware that several scholars interpret Elohim as a "heavenly court."

As a sidenote: Gosh, I think that there are at least 36 variations of El for G-d describing his attributes.

EDIT: I will remind everyone that YHWH appears nowhere in the New Testament. It is theos, a generic Greek word for God, and theos is identified with Jesus in John 1 and Colossians 1.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The trinity of three scriptures destroys the myth of the Trinity:

The commonly believed myth or false doctrine of the Trinity brought into so called Christianity by the largest cult on earth that has permeated through so many groups because of the baggage carried by many who left/escaped this cult that could not for one reason or the other cut lose of the false doctrines of the cult have contaminated most of Christendom. However, the Bible truths from just three scriptures destroy it as follows:

FIRST:

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (New English Translation; NEB)

John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV)

Neither mention in any way more than two beings, yet a trinity of anything requires three similar things.
---

So we know, then that Jesus was the Word of God who became flesh, he was with God, and he was God. We know that both God the Father and Jesus are persons, and both are God, and that there is only one God. So, if there were only the Father and Son mentioned in all of Scripture, we would have no Trinity but Twoity D ).

You are leaving out the Holy Spirit here. Although that Holy Spirit is not mentioned in these texts, He is mentioned elsewhere in John and the other texts. There are too many for me to list here, see Strong's. Specifically, see John 14.26. The Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus. He has a specific role, which means that he is a person. He is divine, and there is only one God, hence the doctrine of the Trinity.

EDIT: I find it quite odd that you say that trinitarians are a cult, when in fact it is the Trinity that is the flagship doctrine of Christianity, settled at the same Council that drew up and closed the cannon of Scripture. The Trinity is denied by no Christian group that I know of, any many sects that have once denied it have repented. It is a matter that has been settled in the Church for almost two millenia, and to deny it for us would be to deny Christ, because by it we define who we mean when we say "Christ".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wow what an informative thread. I have a copy of (J.?) Edgar Goodspeed's Introduction to the NT available to me, and he is an orthodox scholar to my knowledge. Perhaps there are two scholars by the same name. Those who deny fundamental Christian doctrines are plauged with misusing critical scholarship, so I would love to compare my Goodspeed with yours. Unfortunately, I cannot get it until this weekend. I will look forward to constructive debating as soon as I can load up. I am glad to see you quote him as I have used him before as well.

EDIT: I can't believe this thread has so many hits. Enjoy!!! :woohoo:

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Revjeremiah: Said This is where we will disagree, I do not consider the scripture to be consistent, comprehendable, nor practical for our day.

Why Not.?? And if you are a true Atheist why are you on a religious forum.?

You are soul seeking., which is good, most Christians do agree upon the same interpretations of the bible. Its the new age sects and fundamentalist groups that do not.

Also why is an Atheist allowed to question the trinity and respond negative to the Godhead and not get warned from the moderators.

Its seems when I responded in the Atheist forums I get warned, dont seem like the moderators play fair or the rules only apply to some.

Angel

I did get warned for being off topic. I cannot answer your question in fear of being warned again

 

[may]

Beyond a doubt, the Trinity doctrine has confused and diluted people’s understanding of God’s true position. It prevents people from accurately knowing the Universal Sovereign, Jehovah God, and from worshiping him on his terms. As theologian Hans Küng said: "Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?" But that is what belief in the Trinity has done.


​

Those who believe in the Trinity are not "holding God in accurate knowledge." (Romans 1:28) That verse also says: "God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting." Verses 29 to 31 list some of those ‘unfitting’ things, such as ‘murder, strife, being false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless.’ Those very things have been practiced by religions that accept the Trinity.​

For instance, Trinitarians have often persecuted and even killed those who rejected the Trinity doctrine. And they have gone even further. They have killed their fellow Trinitarians in wartime. What could be more ‘unfitting’ than Catholics killing Catholics, Orthodox killing Orthodox, Protestants killing Protestants—all in the name of the same Trinitarian God?​

Yet, Jesus plainly said: "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." (John 13:35) God’s Word expands on this, saying: "The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother." It likens those who kill their spiritual brothers to "Cain, who originated with the wicked one [Satan] and slaughtered his brother."—1 John 3:10-12.​

Thus, the teaching of confusing doctrines about God has led to actions that violate his laws. Indeed, what has happened throughout Christendom is what Danish theologian Søren Kierkegaard described: "Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it."​

Christendom’s spiritual condition fits what the apostle Paul wrote: "They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort."—Titus 1:16.​

Soon, when God brings this present wicked system of things to its end, Trinitarian Christendom will be called to account. And she will be judged adversely for her God-dishonoring actions and doctrines.—Matthew 24:14, 34; 25:31-34, 41, 46; Revelation 17:1-6, 16; 18:1-8, 20, 24; 19:17-21

 

[Scuba Pete]

May...

I must say that type of narrow minded mentality is what I would expect of a Pharisee. You quote scriptures that have no connection with the issue at hand. While you are straining this gnat, be sure not to choke too hard on the camel of doctrinal pride.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I must say that type of narrow minded mentality is what I would expect of a Pharisee.

Respectfully, you seem to have a narrow minded view of the Pharisee. Does that extend to sages such as Hillel?