"Begotten"

[B. W.]

I can't answer or make a comment from something you are not making clear.

You made it very clear - You appear not to know even the basics of ancient Hebrew and Greek of the bible - Period.

-
-
-

[B. W.]

I can't answer or make a comment from something you are not making clear.

You made it very clear - You appear not to know even the basics of ancient Hebrew and Greek of the bible - Period.

John666 - you talking points about Greek/Hebrew appear to be coming from "The Way International" founder Mr. Wierwille


The Quote below is from the article found on this website as titled: http://www.abouttheway.org/

THE WAY OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION

by John Juedes


IN HIS SEARCH to "take a pure look at God's revealed Word," Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille founded a research ministry called "The Way International". Dr. Wierwille laid the groundwork and direction for the group through his own meticulous study. He claims:

I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, ... If one word is omitted from the Word of God, is it still the Word of God? No, it has become private interpretation. By omitting one word, Eve no longer had The Word. [1]

Any teacher who actually completes this goal is worthy of followers. But, does this great ideal really show in Dr. Wierwille's own work? Or do his writings reveal many of the omissions, additions and substitutions he claims to avoid?

"Omissions from The Word"

Since Dr. Wierwille claims to handle God's Word so diligently and accurately, his careful readers are surprised to find that he and his followers often do omit words from biblical passages. His most common method of biblical surgery is misuse of "the critical Greek texts," and manuscripts. For instance, on the basis of a marginal reading found in only one, entirely obscure and unreliable manuscript, called MS-31, The Way deletes the word "death" from John 21: 19[3] . Again, Dr. Wierwille, himself, places the reading of a single manuscript over scores of others in order to delete the word "son"from Galatians 4:6 [4].

In this case, the manuscript he cites, (p. 46), is of high quality, certainly much better than the previously discussed MS-31. However, dependence on any single manuscript is hazardous, and in this case erroneous. Dr. Wierwille attempts yet another sleight of hand to delete the words "the holy" from Luke 10:21. He concedes only that "some critical Greek texts add" these words. However, the substantial majority of Greek texts, including the newest and most reliable of them, clearly expose his false omissions.[5]

As the evidence above shows, Dr. Wierwille often cites inadequate "evidence" in favor of his omissions, while at other times he ignores the powerful evidence against traditional deletions because he prefers them. To make the situation worse, at times he even neglects to cite any support at all for his omissions! In effect, he deletes words without telling you he is doing so! For instance, when he lists Acts 16;7, he entirely neglects the words "of Jesus." Every critical text except the outdated Textus Receptus (Stephens and Elzevir) of the 1600's A.D. contains these words. Dr. Wierwille's negligence omits the phrase, "of Jesus", from the verse in which it rightly belongs .[6] It is apparent that Dr. Wierwille misuses the Greek manuscripts and texts in order to omit whatever he desires.



Dr. Wierwille places great weight on the presence or absence of the definite article, "the", in a text. He writes, "To add the article 'the' is changing the text."' So we are especially surprised to find that he omits the article "the" from at least nine New Testament passages that speak of the spirit!"

We find the most outstanding example of The Way's omissions of biblical words in Dr. Wierwille's discussion of Acts 8:22. He changes "Repent ... if perhaps the thought ... may be forgiven thee" to "Forsake ... that the thoughts ... may be forgiven thee." His rationale: "the word 'perhaps' in the critical Greek text is literally translated 'that'." It is true that the basic meaning of the word "perhaps" (Greek = ara) is "that," or rather, "then, therefore." However, Dr. Wierwille completely neglects and omits, the word "if" (Greek = ei) which stands directly before "that" (ara) in the sentence. Ei is translated "if" almost exclusively in over 300 New Testament occurrences. When used with ara, it means "if perchance" or"in the hope that" as Mark 11:13 and Acts 17:27 indicate. Dr. Wierwille's omission of this word ie, reverses the true meaning of this passage.

"Additions to The Word"

Not only does Dr. Wierwille wrongly omit the words from Scripture, but he adds words as well. Commenting on 11 Corinthians 5:20, he emphasizes that "now then (not when we die, but right now)" we are ambassadors for Christ.[10] Other Scripture verifies that now we are ambassadors, but Dr. Wierwille adds "Now" to this verse to make it read that way! The Greek of verse 20 reads simply "therefore (oun) we are ambassadors for Christ." Dr. Wierwille also adds a word to I Corinthians 12: 11. He speaks of a "unique triple reflective ... with the emphasis made by one, self and same." "But the Greek doesn't use three words, but two, en ("one") and auto ("the same" or "himself"). Dr. Wierwille imposes the third word of his "triple reflective" on a verse in which it has no rightful place!

In spite of Dr. Wierwille's earlier assertion that "To add the article 'the' is changing the text," he goes on to do exactly that. he quotes Romans 3:22, "Even the righteousness of God which is by [the] faith of Jesus Christ unabashedly inserting the article "the" where there is none in the Greek text ![12] D-. Wierwille also favors the addition of "holy" to both Acts 8:18 and Romans 15:19, in spite of greater manuscript evidence to the contrary. [13]

Dr. Wierwille again implies, and in effect adds, a word to I Corinthians 12, this time in verse 7. He emphasizes the word "withal," implying a Greek word as its source: " 'Withal' gives the added understanding of superior benefits 'entirely or altogether,' in other words, immediately and ultimately."" From where does he get this special "added understanding"? There is no Greek source for it. The King-lames Version uses the words "profit withal" to translate a single Greek verb, sumpheron. If Dr. Wierwille was aware of this, he surely would have given the archaic meaning of "withal" which the King James Version's translators had in mind "therewith" or "besides." Instead, Dr. Wierwille creatively implies and emphasizes what doesn't exist.

"Substitutions in The Word"

Not only does Dr. Wierwille omit some biblical words and introduce new ones, but he substitutes some as well! For instance, he deletes the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In their place, he substitutes the words "In my name,"[15] He admits that the New Testament manuscripts unanimously disagree with him, but he still refuses to listen to the scores of available copies!

Again, in his commentary on John 1:18 he substitutes "only-begotten Son" for "only-begotten God . " [16] The "evidence" he gives for this substitution seems to be of enough quantity, but is qualitatively inferior. When he examines Hebrews 11:5 in the first printing of "Power for Abundant Living. he asserts that the Greek word anablepo must mean "'look with one's eyes' or literally to see someone die". [17] However, no Greek text available contains the Greek word anablepo in Hebrews 11:5. While Dr. Wierwille's definition of anablepo is open to serious question, he has corrected his mistake in a subsequent edition and replaced anablepo with eidon. That verb (eidon), however, cannot bear the exclusive definition of seeing with one's eyes. For example it is used of Jesus "seeing" men's thoughts (Luke 9:47), of seeing God's mercy (Romans 11:22ff) and of Jesus' body not seeing corruption (Acts 2:27, 31). Thus while Dr. Wierwille has particularly corrected his error, he has allowed to stand the old definition that does not apply to the word actually used in Hebrews 11:5.

The last word substitution we will mention here is the best example of a carefully engineered and concealed deception. Dr. Wierwille cleverly relates the wording of Isaiah 43:7 to that of the creation account; especially Genesis 1:26 and 2:7. He points out that the Hebrew word yatsar is found in both Isaiah and Genesis 1:26. He also leads his reader to believe that a third Hebrew word, asah ("made") is found in both Isaiah and in Genesis 2:7, "man become a living soul." Here he ties asah to the Genesis verse: "The soul, nephesh, of man is the part God made, asah, by breathing into his formed body the breath of life. God put life into Adam; He made man a living soul."" Dr. Wierwille leaves his reader with the distinct impression that asah ("made") is found in both Isaiah 43.7 and Genesis 2:7. However, when we examine the original Hebrew, we find that the word asah can be found nowhere in Genesis 2:7. Rather, "became" comes from the Hebrew hayah. Dr. Wierwille subtly leads the reader to believe asah is found there, in effect inserting this word into the text. His presupposition is: "If God's Word means what it says and says what it means, these words cannot be synonymous, otherwise words are useless as a means of communication.""

Dr. Wierwille knows that he must wrongly lead his reader to believe that asah is found in Genesis 2:7, or his entire argument disintegrates under his own premise that the Hebrew words cannot be synonymous. What is the source of Dr. Wierwille's repeated omissions, additions and substitutions? Many times the source is apparently ignorance in one form or another. In a sloppy, overzealous effort to "expound" on parts of Scripture, Dr. Wierwille depends on and emphasizes the King James wording over the actual Greek text. This is apparent by his emphases on "now" in 11 Corinthians 5:20 and "selfsame" in I Corinthians 12:11. In his discussion of Hebrews 11:5, he perhaps guessed at the Greek word behind "see"-and was wrong. Other times, his ignorance is perhaps that of a lack of knowledge rather than sloppiness. His naive comments on Galatians 4:6 and John 1:18 suggest this.

In other cases the source of Dr. Wierwille's emendations of Scripture is likely not ignorance, but careful manipulations based on preconceived theology. His linguistic sleight-of-hand with asah in Genesis 2:7, his acceptance of the most slipshod "evidence" to support the omission of "death" from John 21:19, and his elimination of "if"from Acts 8:22 are likely examples of manipulation.

Dr. Wierwille probably did not have himself in mind when he wrote, "We omit a word or we add a word or we change a few words. We arrange The Word to suit ourselves and, therefore, we do not have the true Word ."[20] Even so, this description fits him very well. He repeatedly omits, adds, and changes words. He arranges the Word to suit himself and does not end up with the true Word. This failure to rightly work God's Word reveals his bankruptcy as a Biblical teacher.

Dr. Wierwille accuses translators who capitalize god" in John 10:33 of wrongly forging Scripture. Dr. Wierwille's forgeries are much more numerous and serious than the translators' alleged forgery. Even more, Dr. Wierwille often executes his forgeries in deceptive and misleading ways. When his forgeries are exposed and when they collapse under close scrutiny, his entire theological system collapses with them. "To knowingly and deliberately forge scripture is sin," he writes." Forgery of Scripture is sin-and Dr. Wierwille is the greatest of offenders.

NOTES:

1. Jesus Christ is Not God, rear book flap.

2. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. p. x, Power for Abundant Living p. 253.

3. The Way Magazine, May-June 1975, "The Integrity of the God-Breathed Word," Walter Cummins, p. 7.

4. Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 146.

5. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 304. The texts that expose Dr. Wierwille's omission include United Bible Societies (UBS), Nestle-Aland, Westcott-Hort, Alford. Tregelies, Tischenclorf and Lachmann.

6. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 32 1. 7.Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 164,

8.Mat. 12:18 (Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 290), John 3:8 (Ibid, p. 307), Acts 2:17 (lbid, p. 313), Acts 4:31 (lbid, p. 314), Acts 15:8 (Ibid, p. 320), 1 Cor. 12:9 twice (lbid, p. 334), 1 Cor. 14:14 (Ibid, p. 335), Revelation 5:6 (Ibid, p. 356).

9. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 117, 10. Power for Abundant Living, p. 343.

11. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 178. 12. Power for Abundant Living, p. 340.

13. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 317, 330. 14. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, p. 171.

15. Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 19. 16. Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 115.

17. Power for Abundant Living, 1971 printing, p. 191. 18. Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 60-61.

19. Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 58-59. 20. Power for Abundant Living, p. 254-255.

21. Bibliography-Jesus Christ is Not God, "Forgers of the Word," p. 22

John P. Juedes, C. Personal Freedom Outreach, 1984

Back to "Biblical Research & Teaching" Menu

[1stjohn0666]

Where did you get a Hebrew copy of John 1:1 with the Hebrew panim

[B. W.]

Where did you get a Hebrew copy of John 1:1 with the Hebrew panim

A few here - but you do not understand Hebrew used to discern the following... Much of this I commented on in the OT Concept of God thread on this Forum... Read there...

Gen 32:28, 29, 30, Numbers 6:22-27

Exo 3:2, 5, 14, 15, Exo18:12, Exo 33:14, 15c

Isa 43:10
-
-
-

[1stjohn0666]

Please I want to see panim in John 1:1 ....

[Canuckster1127]

Please I want to see panim in John 1:1 ....

Where did you study Hebrew and Greek?

[1stjohn0666]

I have a masters in what is called Koine Greek or common Greek. My OT reference of scripture is the Septuigint. As for Hebrew, I am just an amateur. I can recite the entire Sh'ma in the Hebrew dialect, and various other passages. I know enough Hebrew to get by. So if panim exists in the passage of John 1:1 please enlighten me.

[PaulSacramento]

Where did you get a Hebrew copy of John 1:1 with the Hebrew panim

Where did this come from ???

[1stjohn0666]

I never seen it.....

[B. W.]

I never seen it.....

For someone with a Masters in Greek you appear quite ignorant of it use - maybe too much Study from the WAY INTERNATIONAL Master Coruses? don't know if that is where you got it from or merely influenced by it.

You also do know how the NT connects with the OT in identifying the Messaih - how the Hebrew connexts the dots. So since you cannot be reasoned with - here are copies from post I made - First from Is Jesus the Messiah thread and the next The OT Concept of God thread. I suugest you read OT Concept of God thread beginning from page three.

The Panim /panyim in John 1:1-14 was identified as the Word bearing YHWH from the OT - Hence John writes in John 1:1, 2, 3, 14 - connects directly to the OT idenfying who Jesus is and always will be.

Your POV MR 666 = makes people worship a created being - creature a violation of Exo 20:1-3... you have no answer for this - do you?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... nim#p69951

John the Baptist stated that Jesus was before him.

John 1:30 , "This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me." ESV

How can that be since John the Baptist was born before Jesus (Luke 1:16, 36,41,76,80)?

That question helped me explore who Jesus was. From this began for me an unlocking of the Old Testament prophesies about the Messiah and how he was to be identified. I'll share a little with you all here. Please read slowly and look up the verses. There is more here than I can adequately write.

The ancient Israelites just before Jesus appeared in mortal form were looking for the Messiah. How was he to be identified? One way was through the signs contained in the sacred writings we know now as the Old Testament.

They read where many people saw God and lived to tell about it. From this, the Messiah was revealed and who He is, as well as what He will do. John the Baptist could boldly say, After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me because he knew that Jesus existed before he was ever born

For example, Moses and seventy elders went up to the mountain together and they all saw God and ate and drank in his presence and with God (Exodus 24:9, 10, 11). Yet, God told Moses later in Exodus 33:20 God told Moses that no-one can see God in his full glory and live. So the Lord sent His Goodness, Exodus 33:19, to pass before Moses proclaiming the name of Yahweh. In Exodus 33:14, 15 it describes the Goodness of one of the presences (Hebrew word translated presence is the plural word Panim - faces, presences) of Yahweh.

Why is this important? Answer: God appeared in Goodness to Abraham in Genesis 17:1-3. The Lord appeared again to Abraham in Genesis 18:1-2 in the form of three. God's Goodness spared Lot as Yahweh did say in Genesis 18:21 he was personally going to Sodom to see for himself the outcry against this place was as it was, yet, two others went alone: God's Goodness to spare Lot and the Ruach of Yahweh to give final power of judgment execution over the matter.

Abraham did not die when he saw God what gives? In Exodus 33:20 the context of the verse stated that Moses wanted to see God in his full manifested glory - His Three Panim (Presences) in united full glorious from. This would be impossible for a mortal to behold so God reveals himself in manners in which people can see him and live. Therefore God's Panim (presence, face) of Goodness passed before Moses revealing Yahwehs character and nature (name).

Later Jacob wrestled with the Lord's Goodness in Genesis 32:24 describes as being in the form of a man. Why do I saw Goodness? Genesis 32: 30 describes why I say this: Jacob saw God - Face to Face (paimin to panim) and was spared!

The English translations in Genesis 32:1 uses the English word angel to translate the Hebrew word Malak. Malak means messenger a word bearer sent to do a task. A Malak does not always imply an angelic being and many people sadly miss the import of the Messianic sign that reveals who this "Jesus" is whom John the Baptist stated as coming before him.

This word Malak is so oft translated as angel that people no longer use the word properly. Context of scripture define if a Malak is an angelic being, or human being, or God himself. Please become aware of how this word is used in the Old Testament. For example, Abraham sent a Malak out to find Isaac a wife and that Malak was a human being not an angelic one! Therefore, Malaks are not always angelic beings!

The Hebrew word Malak, often translated as angel, simply means a messenger. Context from the bible defines the type of messenger sent whether they be angelic, human, of God himself as the Malak (meaning simply the Messenger-Word bearer).

In Genesis 32:1 the Malaks Jacob encountered were two as revealed in Genesis 32:2 (God's camp in text in Hebrew means - double camp i.e. ). Again, the same two that went and rescued Lot. One of them wrestled Jacob and Jacob did say he saw 'Yahweh face to face and he preserved my life.'

The Lord's Goodness again revealed!

Gideon saw this Malak, known as Malak Yahweh in Judges 6:22-23. Note that only God can grant life and say one cannot die. Gideon also said he saw the Malak Yahweh and called the place Yahweh Is Peace Judges 6:24. God's Goodness brings peace

Judges 13 tells of the Birth of Samson and how his parents saw the Malak Yahweh in Judges 13:3, 6, 8, 9. They did not recognize who this was as evidence by them seeing only a man (Judges 13:16). They called him a Malak of Yahweh not recognizing him as the Malak Yahweh who delights in the light of mankind.

Manoah wanted to know the Malak's name in Judges 13:17 and the Malak answered, “…Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" (Judges13:18) Again Isaiah 9:6 speaks of the one who would come that was Wonderful: God's Goodness in wonderful!

The Malak went back to heaven in a flame Judges13:20 and Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:21 then knew this person was the Malak Yahweh (Note you do not bow to an angelic being, Rev 22:8, 9). The one they heard about who revealed himself to Abraham, Jacob, Lot, Moses, Gideon the Malak Yahweh himself came to them! Has he to you yet?.

Read Judges 13:22, 23: "And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." 23 But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these." ESV

Manoah said we shall surely die because they saw, not an angelic messenger, but rather the one known as the Malak Yahweh the Messenger - word bearing Yahweh who has appeared before and gives forth Goodness, Peace, Counselor, Peace, etc to those who look upon him. They live and not die for seeing God. The Malak Yahweh gives the grace of life for seeing God and not death.

So how could Jesus come before John the Baptist? He is the one who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Samson' parents. He is the Messenger Yahweh known as the Word. He bears good news and does tasks.

Now read John 1:1. 2, 3, 4, 5 and understand why He is called the Word and why in him was life and the life was the light of men Moses saw, Abraham saw, Gideon saw, Jacob saw and lived and not died!

Read John 1:14 and understand how Jesus was before John! You see, the Messiah would have to be God (Messenger Yahweh) come in Human flesh to give life back into the word darkened and polluted by sin. The Goodness of God has now appeared to all Mankind -- As it is written:

Isaiah 45:22, Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.KJV

We can now 'Look (turn) to the Lord and live and not die as the testimony from Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Samson's Parents, etc testified as we know know who to Look for!

Isaiah 43:10-12, "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and I am God.ESV

Hosea 13:4, 5, But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of droughtESV

When I first saw the Messianic Signs in the old Testament that testify how Jesus ( the second Person of the Godhead) appeared in the ancient times to many, I can begin to slowly comprehend why the Apostle John wrote the Gospel account the way he did as well as why he used the Greek word Logos Word to describe who Jesus is.

John the Baptist understood better than anyone who Jesus is and could say with boldness "This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me." John 1:30, ESV

Amen

From Page Three --- OT Concept of God:

BW, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I see what you're getting at here. The list you gave, though, has three aspects of God, and then it says his name, as if it's singular. So what I get out of that is that the three aspects of God are One. Blessing; face/grace; countenance/peace. These could correspond with Father, Son, Holy Ghost/Spirit. But I don't know if that's what you meant.

Aaron and his son's were to bless the People by placing God's name on the people with this blessing. The reason for this was so that the people would follow and obey the Lord from a heart of love born from God’srescuing them from slavery “Deuteronomy 11:22. This blessing served to remind them of God’scovenant built upon love.

Yahweh bless thee, and keep thee;

Yahweh make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee;

Yahweh lift up His face upon thee, and give thee peace.

So shall they put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.'

Numbers 6:24-27 JPS

In Matthew, we, those grafted into to true vine, now a royal priesthood (1Peter 2:9) are given a command by Christ to make disciples by baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.

This is a new blessing of the new covenant “baptism (placing new disciples) into the name so the name (name denotes character that the name means to convey) of the Lord will shine through them.

Please note that I have not dealt with how the Hebrew word Panim was used in regards to God. Panim means Face, Presence or Faces, Presences depending how it is used in context of the scripture it is used in. It is a unique word written in a dual form. I'll give you a brief example and try to tie it in to your question.

When referring to God, the word Panim actually points out the Son and the Spirit. For example, Moses wanted to see the Glory of God but God said no one can see his face(s) and live Ex 33:20. Yet, earlier in Ex 24:11 state he and others saw God. Then back in Ex 33:14 God said my Presence (Panim-face) will go before you...

What I am getting at is this “Moses wanted to see God in his entire Glory. God responded no one can look at the combine face(s) of God (God’sfull glory and live) yet seeing one of the faces (Ex 2411 and Ex 33:14) was possible but in full manifested Glory this was currently impossible because Moses (sinful fleshly man) would die exposed to such Holiness.

Okay, you are probably confused but I hope what I write below helps clear things up a bit…

Yahweh (the Father) bless thee, and keep thee;

Yahweh (the Father) make His face (Panim - Son) to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee;

(Before going on “read John 1:14 “Jesus was full of grace and truth...next ask has Jesus extended that grace to a lost and fallen world?)

Yahweh (the Father) lift up His countenance (Panim - face “Holy Spirit) upon thee, and give thee peace.

(Notice Act 1:8, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." Now Read Romans 8:6, Romans 14:17, Romans15:13, Gal 5:22, Eph 4:3 about one of the roles the Holy Spirit plays in the life of a believer. Also note in John 14:27 Jesus uses the word three times “this is a common occurrence in the OT “the thrice use of God ‘s name and the thrice use when God is speaking in the OT as well as here in John 14:27 regarding how peace comes. What you have are examples of the Holy Spirit coming upon a person as well as teaching us about true peace just as Numbers 6 speaks of.)

So shall they (Preisthood) put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.' Numbers 6:24-27

Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." ESV

The purpose of making disciples is for what purpose? What is a disciple to do? I’ll leave that up to the reader to investigate further if they like.

Numbers 6:27 and Matthew 28:19-20 correlates to the same thing - blessings of the covenant. Disciples are to learn to bear the name (character) of the Lord and those who are His are to live how? - reflecting the name (character) of God or their own name (character)?

The OT Israelites were to bear and live according to God’sname “bring honor, exalting God’sname in all they did, so all nations would be blessed through Israel. This did not quite work due to Israel’ssin and constant falling away but did come through Christ later on.

Jesus in Matt 28, you can say is revealing the identities of the faces ( Panim) of Yahweh and placing His name upon Christians so we can shine as lights midst a dark world according to a new covenant with God.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... nim#p61444

[1stjohn0666]

John 1:15, 27, 30. Jesus is above in rank to John the Baptist.

[RickD]

John 1:15, 27, 30. Jesus is above in rank to John the Baptist.

John, you just posted John 1:30, which testifies to Jesus' deity. Scripture says that John the Baptist was born before Jesus was born(Luke 1:36). Yet, in John 1:30, JTB said, "For He existed before me". How is that possible, if Jesus is only a man like you believe, and he was born after JTB?

Surely, now you will concede that scripture teaches that Jesus is God, in light of this scripture that is as clear as day?

[1stjohn0666]

The translators inserted "existed" in the text. It is not in the Greek. I see it as Jesus is a higher rank as the Greek word "protos" implies

[RickD]

The translators inserted "existed" in the text. It is not in the Greek. I see it as Jesus is a higher rank as the Greek word "protos" implies

John, it is in the Greek. The word is, "ἦν". Tranliterated to "ēn". Which means "was".
Jesus "was" or "existed" before JTB.
You are interpreting this scripture to suit your belief that Jesus is not God, instead of letting scripture speak for itself.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 2258&t=KJV

****just to add:The verb ἦν means "was," and is the imperfect of the verb ἐιμί, "to be."

[PaulSacramento]

The translators inserted "existed" in the text. It is not in the Greek. I see it as Jesus is a higher rank as the Greek word "protos" implies

So, WHO decides what IS original or inserted in the greek texts?
I would assume that we should go with the OLDEST available texts, correct?