Posts by Blotty

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

Duran

you are aware "Soul" can mean person right? even in english we use the idoim "poor soul"

no The NWT does not mistranslate: The NIV translates "soul" as "being" as one example

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

"I clearly live rent free in your head, maybe you should deal less with my person and much more with the content of what I have to say for its merit." - I have no clue what this even means... if it means I think about you all the time (my best guess) - not at all, your the easiest person to forget about - I have students, family and close friends on my mind.. you in my head is a waste of my energy.

again Im assuming it means this (I haven't googled it, and cant be bothered).. if I'm wrong please correct me.

I'm more annoyed EVERY TIME I come on you make such stupid, obviously theologically motivated arguments and annoy a lot of people here and else where - seriously, go and get a life.. if you try to hide this.. you don't do a very good job.

"But if you're so insistent, feel free to check it out on page 110 (or 64), you won't get very far without my translation." - really wont I? you under estimate me - a person you only know online and have never met.. your assuming I wont get far - pathetic.

"Suggesting that I “made up” these sources is a baseless attack and avoids addressing the actual content and linguistic evidence presented. " - you made up other crap before... I have plenty of evidence to prove it.. hence I dont believe a word you say (type... write? whatever you get the point)

"This practice is standard, especially if a source’s language poses a barrier to comprehension." - this is one of your hilariously wrong claims - I have plenty of books that cite books in French and German both of which I cant read

(well German slightly, because I can understand Dutch to some extent, but this is besides my point)

academic articles cite ALL of their sources! ask any reputable scholar... or go to the academic Bible subreddit and ask there... you will very soon be proven wrong.

While reddit is not the best source of information (actaully its Quora level of bad) there is certain subreddits that REQUIRE you to cite your sources, no matter the language.

"and translations are vetted by established experts in the field. Furthermore, I am open to providing additional citations upon request" - was your translation peer reviewed? if so can you provide evidence of this, and like you said to me which applies equally to you - your sources are NOT majority opinion and not the only possible emaning..

That second part is funny - shall I document how many times sources were asked for by me and others and you never provided - infact this calls to mind when I requested a source and you said I reminded you of a 2+2 meme...

so your openness to providing sources is yet another lie, because you also accused people of quote mining (including a scholar) who did provide sources for their claims... ones you could easily go and check the context of..

"Your distrust of my translation is understandable if you question its accuracy; however, this skepticism does not invalidate the arguments presented." - mainly because I don't trust you... If someone else on this website went and translated it and gave it to me (for the most part) I would trust their translations.

you are known (to me) to lie about alot of things..

Nomina sacra for starters... Where someone on here had to CORRECT your claims regarding 1 corin 8:5,6

and you ommited to mention 1 set was plural and other set was singular.. there are NO plural nomina sacra..

- will answer the rest later-

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

please answer: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6240527658254336/alteration-revelation-3-14-4th-century-support-emerging-trinity-doctrine?page=11#/5144211821690880

"Accusing me of fabricating sources is an ad hominem attack that does not engage with the linguistic evidence I presented. I didn't mark the other dictionary because it's not in English, so obviously you wouldn't understand it, I translated the important part into English."

- so since I wouldn't understand it, since its not in english you wont tell even the title and page number?

Thats the most pathetic things Iv ever heard, have you actaully ever read academic articles? if you claim to be "careful" in your linguistic analysis you would provide ALL your sources! whether I "understand them" or not is besides the point

this proves you havent read academic papers at all. Else you would know they cite ALL sources no matter if they are in english or not - your no scholar and you are not careful..

"I translated the important part into English." - I should trust your translations because? How have you proven to be a reliable source in the last 3 days? simple answer: you haven't

"Saul’s disqualification as king due to disobedience doesn’t alter the fact that he was the first king anointed by God for Israel. " - God never made the covenant with Saul tho did he? David was temporally first in that regard. followed by Solomon. The messiah was to come from DAVIDS line NOT SAULS

Naturally it would only be made with one who was a blood relative to Jesus.

" David being “firstborn” is about covenantal prominence" - was David the first one God made the DAVIDIC (or messianic) covenant with? yes or no?

"“Firstborn” for Israel signifies their unique covenantal relationship with God among the nations, not that they were literally the first nation." - were they the first nation to have this status? yes or no?

by "Temporal in some sense" I mean that you have to be First to have/ get something you previously did not have..

e.g Israel

israel was NOT the first nation created (it could be, the bible never comments on such a thing)

BUT it IS the first nation to enter into tis unique relationship with God - this is a temporal sense & a temporal first

Why I have to explain this I dont know - every other catholic/ protestant/ anglican/ whatever understands this first go and doesnt have to repeat the same argument over and over...

AQWSD": Your latest response reflects frustration rather than substantive engagement with the textual and scholarly arguments provided. "

also AQWSD: doesnt cite a single scholarly source until backed nto a corner and called out on it

also doesnt provide a dicionary citaion when asked because it was "in another language"

asked to stop making long posts - continues doing so...

double standards at its finest..

" sharing the Father’s divine essence in a way creatures cannot. " - does Origen actaully say this? or are you "helping" one of the most honest scholars in history with his woridng - Which i doubt Origen of all people need help with.

"a clear subordinationist position or a denial of the Son’s divinity. " - divine learly doesnt mean the same thing to you as it does to me - your term is never defined by any church father I can find...

"Divine" atleast to me means a spirit creature...angels (Who Origen also calls divine and theos) I can find no church father who makes a distinction, except for Atha, but I think he is about as credible as you.. so in the trash heap essentailly until proven otherwise.

"it was part of a rich, symbolic language used to affirm the Son’s role in creation while upholding his eternal and divine relationship to the Father." - so Origen essentially said what Arius said... but didnt mean the same thing... tho explicitly states basically what the Witnesses think, but no he doesnt actaully mean that - we should believe you, someone who has lied constantly - over the most honest scholar probably in history?

Im going to say no and go with what Origen says:

The father is autotheos - the Son is not..

The son is the most ancient of the works of creation

Angels are called "gods" because they are Divine (tho SHOULD NOT be worshiped in place of god)

Why did Jerome compare Origen to Arius then? and say his writings were "full of heresy"? Why does Jerome admit that tampering did occur with Origens wriitngs?

"And yet they covertly struck at Origen as the source of the Arian heresy: for, in condemning those who deny the Son to be of the substance of the Father, they have condemned Origen as much as Arius...”"

- (source of quote: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001084.htm#:~:text=And%20yet%20they%20covertly%20struck,Origen%20as%20much%20as%20Arius.)

just one source for ref (I have more):https://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.com/2010/12/jerome-said-all-of-origens-books-were.html

you know eternity works in 2 directions right? It is highly possible Origen means from a certain point into the future, Origen also believes souls are eternal (those quotes are attributed to Origen for a reason :) )- but obviously that eternity goes in 1 direction.

“theologically motivated friends,” - you dont know the reputation of ones like Trevor R allin and other sources you cite do you? they have been proven time and time again to LIE

i.e one of your sources previously claimed ho on appears in Heb 1:2... funfact: it doesnt - this person tried to defend this in many ways "Hos on" and "ho on" DO NOT mean the same thing... they lied- case closed

ho on appears in the LXX of Ex 3:15, ho is the masculine definite article... Hos is a the masuline relative pronoun...

thats just one example off the top of my head... I have an entire list stored I could upload and cite..

I have caught you lieing here and else where NUMEROUS times... (I can also cite those in a public post on here if you like? (genuine question))

Trevor R Allin is a "known" liar on this forum... see Wonderments posts from around 8 years ago.. He got massively exposed for lieing about John 8:58 and Beduhn..

THe man clearly did not read Robertsons or barclays or Horts Commentaries... else he would have known not to accuse beduhn of what he did... He is not a trusted source, anything that man says can go straight in the garbage unless he can provide proper evidence (Which, like you - He never does)...

" selective use of terms" - you literally cherry pick when philosophical meanings apply and dont.... I have seen you do this on other websites... Col 2:9 springs to mind... Either we apply philosophical terms or dont - which is it?

"cherry-picking church fathers" - never seen anyone more notorious for doing this.. The Witnesses are more reliable than you, and thats saying something.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

For the Son of God, the First-born of all creation, although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation; for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. (Against Celsus, BOOK V, Chapter 37)

pulling out another of my many "backups"

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

[if you do not answer the above, I will simply repaste in to every responce from now on]

and Where is my dictionary citaiton? I now know 100% that was a fake dicitonary made up by you or one of your friends - otherwise you would be more than happy to provide a title to it.. There is no other reason you wouldnt provide - anyone else on this website would - hence they are more credible than you.

"Aquila, conversely, often emphasized literalism." - EXACTLY AS BRITTANICA STATED, hence Aquilas slavishly literal (from now on: Hyper literal) translation - Aquila translates the literal word NOT its intended meaning.. That's up to the readers to figure out (BEST translations method IMO, unless its an idoim that makes no sense in the target language)

This is why he preferred the Greek equivalent to QNH's possessed meaning, Whereas the LXX preferred "Ektisen" in this case and Gen 14:19,22.

" While David is called the “firstborn” (Psalm 89:27), this denotes his preeminence among kings, not a literal first in temporal order." - Was Saul related (direct blood relative) to David or in the same geneological line? No he was not... so we can dismiss Saul because David was temporally first in the sense his line was the choosen ("begotten") messianic line. Consequently he is the first of that line to be selected.

also see: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207%3A12-16&version=NIV

Saul is also invalid because he was removed by God - David was the First King "placed" by God (This is one of the two possible interpretations)

"the cases of Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) and Israel (Exodus 4:22), neither of whom were literally firstborn." - Firstborn has a temporal sense in BOTH cases - Deaut 32 explains why Isreal was Gods "Firstborn" its the nation God "adopted" first. Ephraim has TWO possible explanations because there is also a nation called 2 perons or things called by that name.

"This argument is well-supported in biblical scholarship." - cite a REPUTABLE source please.. not one your theolgoically motivated friends

"I was correct in addressing the non-literal use of “firstborn.”" - you have addressed that over 100 times , Im not as dense as you seem to be... I dont need 5 million explanations of the same thing

" Therefore, reliance on cognate languages does not detract from my point that qanah can mean “possess” in Proverbs 8." - but even so, The NET (ONe among many sources) and Burney himself state that "created" is the most likely intended meaning due to

- the verbs used in 23 -25

- Gen 14:19, 20, Deut 32:6 etc - Where they all must mean "created"

- LXX, syriac translations

and many other points

"This is a misunderstanding of the argument. Eve’s use of qanah does not imply “creation out of nothing” but rather acknowledges God’s assistance in her ability to bear Cain." - right back at you "This is a misunderstanding of the argument." - you did not read my argument at all.

"but my approach here is exegetical, focusing on the text’s linguistic and historical context." - if this were true, you would consider more evidence than your theologically motivated friends, the church fathers and your selective use of philosophical terms to suit your agenda - becuae I can do the same thing with passages like Col 2:9 and others to suit mine

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

"A respectful and reasoned dialogue about different interpretations could allow both parties to explore the text more deeply." - learn what respect means.... and change your attitude then I may show you respect... until then, not happening....

> If someone asks you to atop posting long posts and you continue doing so - is that showing respect?
> Is flooding WItness blogs with garbage when they ask you not too repect?
> is posting user names such as "hahahaha" or "lolololol" respect?

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

Ever heard the saying "sayng alot while saying very little" - that's what I see coming from you... alot of garbage theological talk - not actual dialogue.

"This response doesn’t engage with the main point about consistency in translation. When a term in Hebrew, such as qanah, has a range of meanings, we should expect ancient translators to reflect those nuances depending on context. " - actually it does, if you read you will see what I mean - just one of many examples for you: How did Aquila translate Gen 1:1?

Why is it different from the LXX? I can use the same argument..

" David was not the first person chosen or “begotten” by God, nor was he the first king." - in what world wasn't he the first King "begotten" by God (or: Chosen)? Who was chosen before David then?
and this still doesn't answer about David The KING still being PRE_EMINENT AMONG KINGS. (proving that Firstborn is always partitive)

if you cant figure out what I mean by "chosen" - please go back to school and learn context and antecedents,

"Ephraim’s designation as “firstborn” does not involve a literal birth order." - Where did I claim it did?I said there was a temporal explanation I NEVER said "birth"

"Hebrew thought often links possession, acquisition, and origination, but this does not equate to a straightforward act of creating ex nihilo." - either you are blind, illiterate or are just plain stupid (my vote is for the third one) FOR THE FINAL TIME I DO NOT BELEIVE CHRIST WAS CREATED "ex nihilo"

secondly deut 32:6 lxx
ταῦτα κυρίῳ ἀνταποδίδοτε οὕτω λαὸς μωρὸς καὶ οὐχὶ σοφός

οὐκ αὐτὸς οὗτός σου πατὴρ ἐκτήσατό σε καὶ ἐποίησέν σε καὶ ἔκτισέν σε

"Burney’s reliance on cognate languages (e.g., Aramaic, Arabic)" - says the person who literally hasn't read Burneys article... else they would know that their are Hebrew texts that use QNH in texts that can ONLY MEAN "CREATED"

" For example, Genesis 4:1 uses qanah when Eve says, "I have gotten (qanah) a man with the help of the Lord," referring to her child Cain as something she “acquired,” not “created” ex nihilo." - think you should go study human anatomy... Babies are technically "created"

"is not a matter of “theological motivation” but of careful exegesis. " - that's with others - with you it is literally theological motivation and desperation to prove a doctrine.... otherwise you wouldn't go spamming other websites that have ASKED you to not do such things... your no catholic, or atleast DO NOT hold to Christian values - your a troll

and "careful"? you? HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHa thats rich - if you were "careful" you wouldn't act the way you do.

you will have to do ALOT of convincing to get me to change my mind - your comments [specifically unfounded claims, incase thats wasnt clear] are a running joke.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

" it would conflict with other New Testament passages that present Jesus as eternal and uncreated (e.g., John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, Hebrews 1:5)." - ever consider you might be wrong on these passages?

no - your to theologically motivated to see reason, okay then

ill keep reasoning with actual logical humans and leave you theologically motivated lot out at sea..

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

" If “created” were the definitive meaning, we would expect all ancient translations to agree on this point, which they do not." - this is so untrue its not even funny (unlike some of your other comments, which are sometimes hilariously wrong) There are numerous other variations of scripture where if it were as cut and dry as you are trying to make out they would all match as well.. I can cite at least 10 off the top of my head, that if one word was the definitive meaning we would expect all variations to agree..

"David is called “firstborn” not because he was literally the firstborn son or the first king, but because he holds a position of preeminence among kings. " - yes he WAS temporally first in some sense (I am not specifying it so maybe you will be honest for a change and share it) and he still IS NOT an exception to the kings he is firstborn over.

David was THE FIRST to be "BEGOTTEN" by God (in the sense he was the first in his line to be chosen as a descendant of the messiah...) - There is one other interpretation as well which also requires temporal priority.

"However, the significance of the Creed cannot be ignored in this discussion." - I can ignore whatever the hell I want thank you - and I choose to ignore it - it is unbiblical and full of untruths.. so you can stop citing it to me - thank you. I will ignore whatever I want in this discussion - including you.

"Ephraim is called the “firstborn” over Manasseh in Jeremiah 31:9, though Manasseh was born first. " - there are 2 possible explanations to this... both have a temporal meaning, and it still doesn't negate the one called firstborn "coming into existence" OR being part of the respective group. This example is useless to your agenda.

"This is why Israel, as a nation, is called God’s “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, despite not being the first nation." - but Israel was still temporally first in the sense, it was the first nation "adopted" by God... and separated from the other nations in this regard. This example is also useless to your agenda

a better one for you would be "the firstborn of death" - but that is even a stretch because it is still part of its respective group.

"However, these sources, while helpful, do not prove that qanah definitively means “create” in Proverbs 8:22." - Why does one of them literally cite proverbs 8:22 for such a meaning?

you also said "It never definitively means "create" in any of its 85 uses in the Old Testament. " - this is a bold faced lie as it does definitively mean "create" in at least 2 instances - Deuteronomy 32:6 & Psalm 139:13 - proven further by the LXX
Deut 32:6 can ONLY mean "create" because of what its in apposition to it

Gen 4:1 "create" is a possible rendering as "possesion" and "creation" are very closely linked in Hebrew thought.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

" It never definitively means "create" in any of its 85 uses in the Old Testament. " - this is in conflict with many many scholars and is unfounded.. notice a common theme between ALL of these words - Something someone did NOT possess before.. never implies "already had"
God did not always have the heavens and earth

Eve did not always have her Child.

Just to cite a few:

"possessor - so Onkelos and Calvin; but koneh, from kanah, to erect, set up, hence found or create, means founder and creator (Gesenius), combines the meanings of κτίζειν and κτᾶσθαι (Keil), contains no indistinct allusion to the doctrine of Genesis 1:1 (Murphy), and is rendered ο{ς ἔκτισε (LXX.) and qui creavit (Vulgate) " - Pulpit

"Possessor.—Literally, creator, or framer. It is a poetical word, as are also those for “delivered” and “enemies.” The form of the blessing, moreover, is poetical, as it is arranged in parallel clauses." - Elliot

"possessor of heaven and earth] R.V. marg. maker. The word is poetical. It expresses the ideas of making, producing, creating, as in Deuteronomy 32:6, Psalm 139:13, Proverbs 8:22. It is more often used for “acquiring” (cf. Genesis 4:1), a sense which would not here be applicable. In Isaiah 1:3, it is found, as here, with the meaning of “owner.”" - Cambridge

"Possessor of heaven and earth — That is, rightful owner and sovereign Lord of all the creatures; because he made them." - Benson

need i Cite the hundreds more I have? - yep it totally never means created definitively in its 85 uses nope not at all... not once except in the other 2 instances cited by pulpit...

"does conflict with traditional Christian theology upheld by mainstream Christianity since the Nicene Creed, which distinguishes between "begotten, not made."" - so since the 4th century.... Which is where many manuscript variations come from - a creed which I don't care about... argument null and void in my eyes

"However, David was not the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel, so his designation as "firstborn" in Psalm 89:27 is about pre-eminence and authority, not chronological order" - again he is temporally first in some sense.. now are you going to be honest and cite the correct scripture or am I going too? He was temporally first in some sense - hence being called the firstborn...

being called Firstborn ALWAYS denotes a temporal factor in SOME form. and David is still a king.. NOT an exception to the group he is Firstborn of.

"establishing his lineage as the chosen royal line. This typological use of “firstborn” reflects an established biblical pattern where "firstborn" denotes rank and privilege rather than literal sequence." - is he not the first of this chosen line? since that specific line was chosen by God?

"the language and genre of Job differ significantly from Revelation." - So why does BDAG cite it as a grammatical paralell? BDAG NEVER comments on genre or anything it cites ALL instances where the word means the same thing.

" While you may not have used the term “apostate,” your arguments appear to align with Arian interpretations" - So I NEVER called christianity apostate....
& if you actaully pay attention to what I write you would realise I dont actaully adhere to Arian theology atall because I claim Logos was created from something (Like Eve from Adam) not from nothing (What Arians claim, allegedly - wouldn't be surprised if Atha lied tho)