Search results

Greetings again Lon, I accept "I will be, He will be" as the correct meaning from the tense and the context is also supported by Exodus 3:12 and Exodus 6:1-8.. As far as the tense is concerned, one of my mentors used to refer to the listing of "Ehyeh" under the "future tense" in the print...

Greetings again Lon, The scholars who I have read state that "Ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14 is best represented by "I will be" the same as Exodus 3:12 and also necessitated by what is stated in Exodus 6:1-8, rather than speculating the full range of tenses and ideas relating to the state of...

Greetings again Lon, I am not sure if you are agreeing that the correct translation is “I will be”, or that “I AM” is acceptable and that you prefer this based on what you say in the rest of your post. Yes, but I suggest that the real reason is that Trinitarians are not really interested in...

Greetings again Lon, I was introduced to the subject of the Yahweh Name at a Young People's weekend when I was 19, and the youth leader also prompted a few more aspects in the years following. This has been an interest ever since, and some of my understanding has been consolidated as a result...

Greetings again Lon, I am content at the moment with three Hebrew scholars in my fellowship, two from many years ago, and one present. When I first joined a forum 17 years ago he had a long running thread on the Yahweh Name and had three or four Trinitarians opposing his understanding of the...

Greetings again Lon, I am not troubled by statistics or the layman label, except to say that I am concerned that few accept what I believe is the truth. I repeat that I would consider it very difficult to convince a Christadelphian that the Trinity is correct. My daughter could not continue...

Greetings again Lon, I will still maintain my view of this, partly based upon the fact that Psalm 8:4-6 is spoken in the past tense. God speaks as if it is already accomplished, and Jesus enters into the same thinking, the same assurance that he will overcome sin, will be crucified, will die...

Greetings again Lon, Life eternal depends upon coming to know God and Jesus. I do not read any equivalence here, but two beings. And is and. Jesus is talking to God, His Father. I could not follow what the article is trying to teach, but did not spend much time on this. "Sent" implies that...

Greetings again Lon, I find some of the terms of John 17:3-5 are interesting, and I doubt that it is teaching the Trinitarian or Arian concepts, or of the pre-existence of Jesus as God the Son or the Son of God. John 17:3–5 (KJV): 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only...

Greetings again Lon, Yes, and perhaps more wide-ranging. I appreciate your post, but cannot agree with the way you view most of the Scriptures that you allude to or quote. I do not agree with Arianism, as I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is unique, the full revelation...

Greetings again Lon, I suggest that you have avoided my understanding of the “Lord” portion of John 20:28 based upon Psalm 110:1. If you look at my thread on “The Yahweh Name” I encountered Apple7. On a few other threads I had a thorough discussion on Psalm 110:1 and he went to extraordinary...

Greetings again Lon, To me those that argue the Trinity dwell on some of the ambiguous Scriptures and ignore most of the relevant Scriptures where the subjects of the One God, God the Father and Jesus, the Son of God are simply and clearly taught. My understanding of the One God, the Father in...

Greetings again Lon, Fair enough. I cannot accept the Trinity and I have been in the present environment for many years. I was brought up from a child to believe that there is One God, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Trinity was always that strange doctrine...

Greetings Lon, Not much substance in your post. I am prepared to discuss individual Scriptures, but not concerned about your complaints. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Bradley D and Right Divider, Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. The title “the Son of Man” first appears in Psalm 8, and this is stating that Jesus is a son of Adam: Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest...

Greetings again JudgeRightly, I am interested every now and then to drop in and look at this long running thread. I usually find much the same material, and sometimes a few different participants. I was interested in looking at some of your interaction with NWL, as I do have some common ground...

Greetings again NWL, I appreciate your fairly thorough answer and the fact that you have read through my assessment of the JW Booklet. Yes, I read your reference to the JW explanation of why they use “Jehovah” and although it covers most of the ground, it does not spell out the fact of how the...

Greetings again NWL, I appreciate your comments and accept that there is some acknowledgement concerning Jehovah, but possibly not obvious to all of how the error occurred. The current JW booklets continue to emphasise that God’s Name is Jehovah and that the JWs are to be commended for using...

Greetings again NWL, Despite what I said in the previous Post, on reflection, I question to what extent and how many JWs agree with your position that “Jehovah” is not the correct rendition. I decided to add a few quotes from a fairly committed JW advocate of the rendition “Jehovah” and the...

Greetings again NWL, I appreciate and accept this, but the JW literature that I have read continues to state that God’s Name is “Jehovah”. The earlier booklet “What Does the Bible Really Teach?” has a similar statement page 13 “the Bible also teaches that God has a personal name: Jehovah”. It...