the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
It is funny that ‘the one true religion’ has:
Not to mention a whole catalogue of misinterpretations of their own books for their end times beliefs.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
Early Christians were making this stuff up as they went along, largely based on merging Greek concepts into Judaism. It’s much simpler if people stop pretending the Bible is consistent on the matter.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
TonusOH:
I feel bad for the holy ghost. Jehovah and Jesus get all of the attention. He's like the Curly Howard of the group.
Nothing's changed. Acts 19:2:
and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
I guess that rules out it just being ‘God’s power’. See also 2 Corinthians 6:6-7.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
Sorry for derailing. I do like fan fiction.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
Do people still say that?
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
No, it's definitely this thread.
Unless you mean that god, one person, or three are three separate options, in which case the first option cannot be established to exist, and the second option leaves out a large number of people, but 'three' is definitely a thing.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
I smell a false dichotomy.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
I think I demonstrated enough here to show that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year can not be -567 and is actually -511 (512 B.C.E)
🤦♂️🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I won't be back here for awhile
We can only hope.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
So as you can see both text had the same problem. Since the Moon is actually BEHIND and not in FRONT of.
(Actually in this particular case the newer translation says B Virginis, and the observation is corrected by noting that the day is actually one day off, already noted in the 1915 translation. But there are similar issues for lines 11 and 14 so we’ll let it slide…)
Note the hypocritical inconsistency. For his own position with its blundering interpretations of other observations in VAT 4956 (not to mention the rest of his nonsense), he jumps through hoops to try to justify problems, or simply ignores problems altogether. From using a wrong definition of ‘in front’ or ‘behind’ as ‘closer to west on a compass’, to claiming identification of the solstice ‘really’ means ‘start looking for the solstice 3 weeks before’, to claiming ‘Mars entering Praesepe’ was backwardly identified despite the fact there is no corresponding observation in his own nutty interpretation at all, to completely ignoring most of the planetary observations altogether…
But when the tablet has some (actually a total of 3) minor inconsistencies in wording for observations among literally dozens of correct matches for 568/7 BCE? ‘568 must be wrong’. 🤦♂️ VAT 4956 is expected to be perfect when he says so, but wrong or misinterpreted when convenient.
The cognitive dissonance is beyond disgusting.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
As before, he continues to ignore all the massive problems with his nonsense and cling to what he imagines are points in his favour. And he relies on an inferior translation from 1915. And he’s still wrong.
Bear in mind that this joker claiming that line 3 is a ‘major problem’ is the same person who claimed early in this thread regarding the mammoth problems in his own interpretation of VAT 4956:
Any portions of the Tablet that are not translated to what can be simulated in software for year 512 BC is either a scribe error, transcribing error, translation error, or software or algorithm error or intentional corruption of the tablet.As is frequently the case with this type of fanatic, there is a blatant double standard when it comes to expectations of accuracy.
You’re going round in circles and preaching utter nonsense. Just go away.
