Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?

"Do you have any links to that?"Meaning Matthew Henry translated "plural Gods" (MYHLA) in Genesis 1.1.MH Commentary, volume 1, page 1.Robert Jaimeson Commentary, volume 1, page 2.James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, 1895, Hebrew word #430.John R. Kohlenberger III's Preface to Interlinear Old Testament;he wrote, "I know that "elohim" is plural gods, but becauuse it is recorded so many times, and we know it refers to one God, I will translate it God."sl33w

sl33w,I have used the blue letter bible online for a long time and in the past I seem to remember that the hebrew word "elohim" can be used to mean both god and gods depending on the context of the writing. I will check into your references.Edited by Force, : No reason given.

---

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

Incorrect. Its not plural but 'plentyful' [all-incompassing; great; unlimited]. The OT is an intergrated document, and any definition must also allign with all other sectors comprehensively, not selectively. The notion of 'NO GODS BEFORE ME' thus refers only to the perspective of man and the practise of polytheism.Grammatically, its like saying, 'your flat earths' beliefs are not correct.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

of course, when it comes to the following verb in Genesis 1.1, the verb is in singular format, which means elohim is 'magnified' in importance.There are other 'singular' people that were called elohim. Such as Moses. It doesn't mean there was more than one moses, but the importance of Moses was magnfied

IAJ,incorrect.

---

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

quote:

---

All English Bible translations have banned 16 names of the Gods (the God & the Lamb; Rev 22.1).

​

All English Bible translations have blasphemed Genesis 1.1.

​

All English Bible translations have blaphemed Matthew 1.1.

​

But then -- the MSS cannot be blamed for this.

​

The Jews added about a million fake vowels to the Masoretic text.

---

Incorrect. The changes in today's european bibles are post-dead sea scrolls; no changes are seen in the hebrew for 2300 years - while changes are seen post-NT. There is clear motivation for the changes made in the NT.

quote:

---

The Jews even brag about changing, "He Is" (Gen 2.4: HWHY) to "the Lord." They say that the name of God is too sacred to be pronounced, and so they change it to something else.

---

Correction. The text itself says so, namely the 3rd commandment from Sinai ['NOT TO MENTION THE NAME IN VAIN' - namely not in vows or even casually]

quote:

---

Which is more irreverent, A) to mispronounce the name of God; or: B) to intentionnaly change the name of God?

---

Any changes occured with the NT, then the Quran. The term HKVH is made up by christians. This was an abbreviation in the hebrew OT of an entire sentence, and was actually phonationally-spelled by christians. Eg: the abbreviation, FBI, was pronounced phonetically, as 'fbi' - it has no real meaning.

quote:

---

Men have been writing for centuries that the names in the Bible translations are fake. When I was 10 years old, 65 years ago, I was taught that "Christ" is a corruption of "Christos"; meaning, "Anointed." Anointed is banned 490 times.

---

The term christos is greek for savior/redeemer [mochiach/heb], made when the greeks translated the hebrew bible in 300 BCE. The term christ/christos was not applied to christianity till 174 CE, same as the term christian did not occur before that date.Not a single hebrew word in the OT has ever been changed - it cannot be changed because a red signal pops up: the hebrew letters are also numerals, and thus each verse, sentence and book has a numerical ratio. We know that the scrolls represent no changes for 2300 years - thus any changes are post this date.

quote:

---

"God of her (Israel)" is banned 42 times.

---

Israel is in the feminine [the text], which occurs in the same verse where Jacob's name was changed following a covenant - signifying a union or marraige with a contract. This has no relationship with the NT or any notion of a trinity.

quote:

---

In 1706, Matthew Henry translated "plural Gods" correctly in his commentary on Genesis.

---

Motivation: if Mathew did not alter the meaning - there could not be christianity; a trinity and the OT are mutually exclusive, and the reason for the split between these two religions. This is a fact, not an opinion.

Then you have a different understanding of Monotheism, and read the OT texts with a belated, retrospective conclusion. FYI, there is historical precedence to the NT adaptation. Following Alexander's sudden death [assassination], the hellenist priests proposed an amalgamation of hellenism and judaism, in about 250 BCE - because the OT laws were proving more logical to the intelligence greek philosophers, and thereby causing a diminishing of the hellenist preisthood. This syndrome is also represented with the preists in ancient Egypt - which influenced the death of the first born hebrew males when the Pharoah was eliminated and 'A NEW KING AROSE WHO KNEW NOT JOSEPH AND HIS PEOPLE' [Gen].This otherwise sublime premise of making Judaism a universal belief system fell away when the demand also included the statues of Zeus and the God of Israel be melted down and made into one new diety. The Jews rejected this, and the greeks never forgave them - culminating in the Hanuka wars; greek instigation of laws of heresy when Greece became embedded with Rome; and then the creation of christianity - a greek enterprise, mirroring all hellenist beliefs - incuding the trinity, 25th december as the SUN worship day; a son [Mithrais]saving the world; etc.The greek/hellenist influence in Rome culminated in Mighty Rome's greatest war, and the destruction of jerusalem in 70 CE. Here, the west got christianity - while the jews never surrendered to Rome. The rest is history - or contrived history. Christianity and islam arose via force - 99% of all christians and muslims resulted by their ancesters ebforced to convert via the rake and the sword.

IAJ,whether or not you're politically correct in that last post "52" is irrelevant because the entire post "52" is irrelevant to this thread.Edited by Force, : edit

---

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

IAJ, You're an idiot. What about the catholic church forming way before 1706. You're an idiot. What about the reformations in the 1500s. You're an idiot! Whether or not the name is plural has nothing to do with Christianity. Do not respond as you're an IDIOT.Edited by Force, : edit

---

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

While whether or not IamJoseph is an idiot may be subject to debate, it is not to be a debate at . Please (under threat of suspension) refrain from including such in your messages.All: Review the beginnings of this topic and try to have any future messages relate to the topic theme as there defined.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

What about the catholic church forming way before 1706. You're an idiot. What about the reformations in the 1500s. You're an idiot! Whether or not the name is plural has nothing to do with Christianity. Do not respond as you're an IDIOT.

---

What's that got to do with it - and when has the catholic church been right about anything, never mind about the OT - your source of an evidential source is quite astounding! You should better stick to textual conclusion - PLURAL and GOD do not go hand in hand in the OT.

quote:

---

whether or not you're politically correct in that last post "52" is irrelevant because the entire post "52" is irrelevant to this thread.

---

Except it responded to the bizarre claim of 'PLURAL' in the world's first monotheist document. Duh!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Regardless of on-topic/off-topic considerations, both Force's and IamJoseph's messages often seem to leave a lot to be desired.Both of you - Let's bring the quality level up.No replies to this message.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

In my research I have found that the Bibles of today could have come from many sources of either manuscripts or translations.

---

What's your point? Everything comes from other sources - including said divine inspirational writings. The vital factor is what is being said, it is historically vindicated, and does it stand up to today's knowledge and to the factor of truth.While there is hardly any verification of most bibles and scriptures of their origins, I found no negating factors of the OT. IOW, there is no contradictory, contemporary writings of disputation - which is not the case with the NT and Quran. Better than where it comes from, is what is its value. Even Einstein applied other sources - yet his writings were profound.

IAJ,you're so confused you should just quit.

---

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.