Thorn's in a rose bush

[placebofactor]

Can anyone ever explain how the Father can exist without having a beginning? Let me answer the question, NO! It doesn't make sense as men understand things, but God's ways are not our ways.

Question 2: Can anyone explain how Jesus existed without having a beginning? The same answer: NO! My Bible states that the Word, Jesus Christ, was WITH the Father before the creation, and the Word (Jesus) was God.

Revelation 13:8, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Decreed before the creation. Sinners, unbelievers and deniers, who remain on the earth in contrast to those in heaven shall worship the Lamb. It's the Lamb's book of life, not the Father's. So, it's the Lamb, Jesus Christ who will be worshipped.

In the counsel of the Godhead, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, declared Jesus Christ to be a "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world."

Because the Watchtower decided to corrupt John 1:1, and with great sorrow I say, millions have swallowed that lie hook line and sinker, and they continue to draw people away from the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s with their corrupted verse from a corrupted Bible, claiming, "The Word was a god." The only Bible in the world that makes Jesus Christ a god, except for 1 or 2 versions no one has ever seen or heard of.

2000 years of history denied by a group who came out of the woodwork 125 years ago. A group rejected by every mainline Christian church and organization throughout the World. But they do have bedfellows, Mormons, and Muslims who also claim Jesus is not God. They say, "He's a good man, a prophet, a god, maybe; but surely not "God."

Jehovah's Witnesses won’t admit their own Bible calls Jesus Jehovah in, Luke 2:11, "Which is Christ the Lord." Interpreted is, the Messiah is Jehovah." N.W.T. footnotes on Luke 2:11, 1984 edition. "Christ (the) Lord." Greek, Khristos' Kyrios. This expression might be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew ma-shi'ach Yeho-wah'. But they had to add, "Jehovah's Christ."

I love it, they say it "MIGHT BE!" What does "it might be" mean? It is, or it isn't. Dishonest to the core.

Another of their deceptions.
Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the Almighty." Again, the corrupt Watchtower organization claims these words apply only to the Father. Wrong! Jesus is speaking and uses the pronoun "I" not my Father is.

Here's another one concerning the Holy Spirit. The pronoun "He" does not mean "He" to a Jehovah's Witness, "He" means "It". The Holy Spirit is not "he", but an "it," the breath of the Father.

In John 15:26, concerning the Holy Spirit they changed "he" to "that one”. They did the same thing in John 14:26. In John 14:17, speaking of the Holy Spirit, they changed "him" to "it."

Paul said, 2 Corinthians 11:10, "Christ is in me," not the Father is in me.
Verse 13, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Paul said Philippians 1:13, "My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places." He didn't say "My bonds in the Father are manifest---."

Philippians 1:1, to all the saints in Christ Jesus." Not the saints in the Father."

Believers are the Bride of Christ, not the bride of the Father.

Ephesians 1:1, "Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ by the word of God (theos)." By the will of God, hmmm! Jesus is the Word, and in Acts 8, it was the will of the Lord Jesus that made Paul tremble. It was the Lord Jesus who told Paul to arise. It was the Lord Jesus who said concerning Paul, “He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my names sake.” Nothing there about the Father.

And what name would that be? It’s Jesus, who is Jehovah, all to the glory of his Father who is also Jehovah.

[Capbook]

Of course it is two. The Father and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. What is your point?

My point is that the verse is not a comparison between the Father and Son as to their being Deity.

It doesn't say that Jesus IS God either. He himself made it clear that the Father is the one true God.

It also doesn't say that Jesus is not God in that text, but in John 1:18 from original Greek of the New Testament, proves that Jesus is God.

No it doesn't prove that Jesus is God. There are many versions of this that say that Jesus is the SON of God. I posted 16 versions, and there are more. You posted yourself that the "Son" is one acceptable variation!

Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testameant.
See how they rendered John 1:18 below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

[onewithhim]

My point is that the verse is not a comparison between the Father and Son as to their being Deity.

It doesn't say that Jesus IS God either. He himself made it clear that the Father is the one true God.

It also doesn't say that Jesus is not God in that text, but in John 1:18 from original Greek of the New Testament, proves that Jesus is God.

No it doesn't prove that Jesus is God. There are many versions of this that say that Jesus is the SON of God. I posted 16 versions, and there are more. You posted yourself that the "Son" is one acceptable variation!

Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testameant.
See how they rendered John 1:18 below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

Every Bible version is a translation. Even Westcott and Hort. You have to translate from one language to another. Otherwise you'd just have the Greek with no rendering into English.

Do you read Greek? I don't. But even I can see that the two words for "god" in that translation are different. One has a different ending than the other. One letter at the end of the Greek word for "god" looks like a "v." The other word for "god," at the end of the second word we are examining, looks like a "c" with a tail on it. Two different "gods."

[Capbook]

It doesn't say that Jesus IS God either. He himself made it clear that the Father is the one true God.

It also doesn't say that Jesus is not God in that text, but in John 1:18 from original Greek of the New Testament, proves that Jesus is God.

No it doesn't prove that Jesus is God. There are many versions of this that say that Jesus is the SON of God. I posted 16 versions, and there are more. You posted yourself that the "Son" is one acceptable variation!

Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testameant.
See how they rendered John 1:18 below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

Every Bible version is a translation. Even Westcott and Hort. You have to translate from one language to another. Otherwise you'd just have the Greek with no rendering into English.

Do you read Greek? I don't. But even I can see that the two words for "god" in that translation are different. One has a different ending than the other. One letter at the end of the Greek word for "god" looks like a "v." The other word for "god," at the end of the second word we are examining, looks like a "c" with a tail on it. Two different "gods."

No, you see it, it's in Greek, it's not a translation, we can understand it through Strong's Concordance.
Ok, I'll give you one, it's not to support it, as it is a confirmation to the original Greek wording of the text.
Just to let you know that literal word for word translations that aims to maintain the highest accuracy to the original Greek said the same. See uppercase "G" for God, that in fact refute your personal interpretation.

(NASB+)  R1 No G3762  one G3762  has seen G3708  God G2316  at any G4455  time G4455 ;  R2 God G2316  the only G3439  Son, who is  R3 in the  N1 arms G2859  of the Father G3962 ,  R4 He has  N2 explained G1834  Him.

[onewithhim]

It also doesn't say that Jesus is not God in that text, but in John 1:18 from original Greek of the New Testament, proves that Jesus is God.

No it doesn't prove that Jesus is God. There are many versions of this that say that Jesus is the SON of God. I posted 16 versions, and there are more. You posted yourself that the "Son" is one acceptable variation!

Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testameant.
See how they rendered John 1:18 below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

Every Bible version is a translation. Even Westcott and Hort. You have to translate from one language to another. Otherwise you'd just have the Greek with no rendering into English.

Do you read Greek? I don't. But even I can see that the two words for "god" in that translation are different. One has a different ending than the other. One letter at the end of the Greek word for "god" looks like a "v." The other word for "god," at the end of the second word we are examining, looks like a "c" with a tail on it. Two different "gods."

No, you see it, it's in Greek, it's not a translation, we can understand it through Strong's Concordance.

Strong has had to translate the Greek into English to give you the perceived meanings. So Even his renderings are translations.

[Capbook]

No it doesn't prove that Jesus is God. There are many versions of this that say that Jesus is the SON of God. I posted 16 versions, and there are more. You posted yourself that the "Son" is one acceptable variation!

Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testameant.
See how they rendered John 1:18 below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

Every Bible version is a translation. Even Westcott and Hort. You have to translate from one language to another. Otherwise you'd just have the Greek with no rendering into English.

Do you read Greek? I don't. But even I can see that the two words for "god" in that translation are different. One has a different ending than the other. One letter at the end of the Greek word for "god" looks like a "v." The other word for "god," at the end of the second word we are examining, looks like a "c" with a tail on it. Two different "gods."

No, you see it, it's in Greek, it's not a translation, we can understand it through Strong's Concordance.

Strong has had to translate the Greek into English to give you the perceived meanings. So Even his renderings are translations.

But you see now that the Westcott and Hort is the original Greek of the New Testament? And not a translation.

Here, another Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original Greek of John 1:18, that is in addition to the W&H original rendering.

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASB

[onewithhim]

Westcott and Hort is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testameant.
See how they rendered John 1:18 below;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

Every Bible version is a translation. Even Westcott and Hort. You have to translate from one language to another. Otherwise you'd just have the Greek with no rendering into English.

Do you read Greek? I don't. But even I can see that the two words for "god" in that translation are different. One has a different ending than the other. One letter at the end of the Greek word for "god" looks like a "v." The other word for "god," at the end of the second word we are examining, looks like a "c" with a tail on it. Two different "gods."

No, you see it, it's in Greek, it's not a translation, we can understand it through Strong's Concordance.

Strong has had to translate the Greek into English to give you the perceived meanings. So Even his renderings are translations.

But you see now that the Westcott and Hort is the original Greek of the New Testament? And not a translation.

Here, another Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original Greek of John 1:18, that is in addition to the W&H original rendering.

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASB

There HAS TO BE translating done to render the English language from the Greek. Otherwise we would just have the Greek. We must translate to get the meaning of the Greek language and put it into English.

"Highest degree of accuracy" is questionable. There have been at least 16 other versions of the Bible posted here that say "the only begotten SON" instead of the only begotten God.

[Capbook]

Every Bible version is a translation. Even Westcott and Hort. You have to translate from one language to another. Otherwise you'd just have the Greek with no rendering into English.

Do you read Greek? I don't. But even I can see that the two words for "god" in that translation are different. One has a different ending than the other. One letter at the end of the Greek word for "god" looks like a "v." The other word for "god," at the end of the second word we are examining, looks like a "c" with a tail on it. Two different "gods."

No, you see it, it's in Greek, it's not a translation, we can understand it through Strong's Concordance.

Strong has had to translate the Greek into English to give you the perceived meanings. So Even his renderings are translations.

But you see now that the Westcott and Hort is the original Greek of the New Testament? And not a translation.

Here, another Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original Greek of John 1:18, that is in addition to the W&H original rendering.

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASB

There HAS TO BE translating done to render the English language from the Greek. Otherwise we would just have the Greek. We must translate to get the meaning of the Greek language and put it into English.

"Highest degree of accuracy" is questionable. There have been at least 16 other versions of the Bible posted here that say "the only begotten SON" instead of the only begotten God.

You assume that UASV as questionable, but drawing conclusion from such un-evidenced assumptions is at best, a confirmation bias. Here, you can clink the link about UASV as faithful and closed as possible to the original languages.

The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is considered a literal word-for-word translation. It aims to be a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into modern English, striving to preserve the meaning and structure of the source language as closely as possible. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+upda ... e&ie=UTF-8.

Ok, once again, here's the original Greek of the New Testament by Wescott and Hort.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S

[onewithhim]

No, you see it, it's in Greek, it's not a translation, we can understand it through Strong's Concordance.

Strong has had to translate the Greek into English to give you the perceived meanings. So Even his renderings are translations.

But you see now that the Westcott and Hort is the original Greek of the New Testament? And not a translation.

Here, another Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original Greek of John 1:18, that is in addition to the W&H original rendering.

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASB

There HAS TO BE translating done to render the English language from the Greek. Otherwise we would just have the Greek. We must translate to get the meaning of the Greek language and put it into English.

"Highest degree of accuracy" is questionable. There have been at least 16 other versions of the Bible posted here that say "the only begotten SON" instead of the only begotten God.

You assume that UASV as questionable, but drawing conclusion from such un-evidenced assumptions is at best, a confirmation bias. Here, you can clink the link about UASV as faithful and closed as possible to the original languages.

The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is considered a literal word-for-word translation. It aims to be a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into modern English, striving to preserve the meaning and structure of the source language as closely as possible. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+upda ... e&ie=UTF-8.

Ok, once again, here's the original Greek of the New Testament by Wescott and Hort.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S

Your Westcott and Hort presentation doesn't seem complete. Where is the article in front of the first "God" mentioned? It should be there.
I haven't seen a copy of the UASV so I can't comment on it. I'm going to research that and other versions in comparison to it. I just thought......you are at odds with the 1891 version of the Emphatic Diaglott because it is later than the 1864 version, yet you go along with the later version of the UASV. Explain?

[Capbook]

Strong has had to translate the Greek into English to give you the perceived meanings. So Even his renderings are translations.

But you see now that the Westcott and Hort is the original Greek of the New Testament? And not a translation.

Here, another Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original Greek of John 1:18, that is in addition to the W&H original rendering.

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASB

There HAS TO BE translating done to render the English language from the Greek. Otherwise we would just have the Greek. We must translate to get the meaning of the Greek language and put it into English.

"Highest degree of accuracy" is questionable. There have been at least 16 other versions of the Bible posted here that say "the only begotten SON" instead of the only begotten God.

You assume that UASV as questionable, but drawing conclusion from such un-evidenced assumptions is at best, a confirmation bias. Here, you can clink the link about UASV as faithful and closed as possible to the original languages.

The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is considered a literal word-for-word translation. It aims to be a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into modern English, striving to preserve the meaning and structure of the source language as closely as possible. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+upda ... e&ie=UTF-8.

Ok, once again, here's the original Greek of the New Testament by Wescott and Hort.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S

Your Westcott and Hort presentation doesn't seem complete. Where is the article in front of the first "God" mentioned? It should be there.
I haven't seen a copy of the UASV so I can't comment on it. I'm going to research that and other versions in comparison to it. I just thought......you are at odds with the 1891 version of the Emphatic Diaglott because it is later than the 1864 version, yet you go along with the later version of the UASV. Explain?

Would it mean you want to complete the original? I would think that JWs are keen to adding the originals. Is it correct or incorrect?
You can find it as UASV+, you do research? Good we're going deeper now.
I am at odd to 1891 version than to the original 1864 because when the author Benjamin Wilson died the plates were given to your Church founder.
UASV+ is an updated version and had important notes of support, especially from older manuscripts recently found like Papyrus 75.

[onewithhim]

But you see now that the Westcott and Hort is the original Greek of the New Testament? And not a translation.

Here, another Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original Greek of John 1:18, that is in addition to the W&H original rendering.

John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASB

There HAS TO BE translating done to render the English language from the Greek. Otherwise we would just have the Greek. We must translate to get the meaning of the Greek language and put it into English.

"Highest degree of accuracy" is questionable. There have been at least 16 other versions of the Bible posted here that say "the only begotten SON" instead of the only begotten God.

You assume that UASV as questionable, but drawing conclusion from such un-evidenced assumptions is at best, a confirmation bias. Here, you can clink the link about UASV as faithful and closed as possible to the original languages.

The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is considered a literal word-for-word translation. It aims to be a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts into modern English, striving to preserve the meaning and structure of the source language as closely as possible. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+upda ... e&ie=UTF-8.

Ok, once again, here's the original Greek of the New Testament by Wescott and Hort.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S

Your Westcott and Hort presentation doesn't seem complete. Where is the article in front of the first "God" mentioned? It should be there.
I haven't seen a copy of the UASV so I can't comment on it. I'm going to research that and other versions in comparison to it. I just thought......you are at odds with the 1891 version of the Emphatic Diaglott because it is later than the 1864 version, yet you go along with the later version of the UASV. Explain?

Would it mean you want to complete the original? I would think that JWs are keen to adding the originals. Is it correct or incorrect?
You can find it as UASV+, you do research? Good we're going deeper now.
I am at odd to 1891 version than to the original 1864 because when the author Benjamin Wilson died the plates were given to your Church founder.
UASV+ is an updated version and had important notes of support, especially from older manuscripts recently found like Papyrus 75.

The work of Benjamin Wilson speaks for itself to any honest-hearted person. The Watchtower didn't add anything to the Scripture, but appreciated the work that was already done. (And you didn't respond to my question in my former post above.)