Haven't you had your coffee, yet? :coffee:

So...let me see if I have this right...because "rights" are immaterial, abstract realities, they are temporal and mutable in nature, is this right? Would your thesis equally apply to the laws of mathematics and laws of logic?

Ohh...so all those OT passages that teach the plurality of the Godhead are "misinterpretations"? Why don't enlighten us all, Mr. No Answers, by revealing to us which passages, specifically, these are.

And by the way, do you know the difference between a "misinterpretation" and a "mistranslation"? :coffee:

A little heads up: Actor doesn't play by the laws of logic. Therefore, always expect numerous logical disconnects among his own posts. :coffee:

Here's a clue for you: The apostles John and Paul aren't Jesus. Therefore, my point still stands. Jesus never taught that God is within you.

And Jesus did not come to save "ALL humanity". He came to save HIS people (Mat 1:21). And he came to save only those whom the Father would give to him (Jn 6:37). In fact, Jesus very clearly said that he did not come to call the [self]righteous but he came to call sinners to repentance (Lk 5:32)

And from what has Jesus saved you?

Also, the passages you quoted from John and Paul are referring strictly to born again believers. You need to read in those epistles to whom they were addressed.

And for the 99th time, I ask again: If Jesus told the Pharisees that the kingdom is "within them", would this not mean that the kingdom was also in the apostles who were with him and heard his words to the Pharisees?.

Is teaching the same as saying? Because according to a bunch of translations, which you covet, including the KJB, he said just that:

http://biblehub.com/luke/17-21.htm

No, Mr. No Answers, it's much wiser to consult multiple sources. Why would I want to rely on just one source when a translation of any given verse could have been subject to personal bias, e.g. a strong antichrist sentiment of a "learned Jewish rabbi", to name one? The general counsel of scripture teaches the wise principle to seek multiple counselors, cf. Pr 11:14; 15:22; 20:8. And the overarching principle of all is taught in a passage like this one:

2 Cor 13:1b
13 Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
NASB

Any other "pearls of wisdom" you have for us today? :coffee:

Yes, I always look for the true meaning of things via third party translations instead of going to the original source...makes total sense....not. :coffee:

You would seek the counsel of one because you're bat-turd naive enough to believe the one has no biases. Such a trusting soul you are... :coffee:

What bias is there IN THE ORIGINAL WORDS in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE?

Why do you need a translation for what is purportedly THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK EVER WRITTEN?

Someone as devoted as you should be reading and understanding from the ORIGINAL, not from some TRANSLATION which will DEFINITELY HARBOR BIAS.

What about this can't you grasp?

So let me get this straight.

You. Mr. Born Again. Mr. "Everyone Is Ignorant Except For Me and My Church"...this is you...MR PERFECT compared to the rest of us.

BUT as I understand it, you are relying on mere MORTAL TRANSLATIONS to base your entire understanding of the Bible upon? MORTAL TRANSLATIONS filled with the biases of the translators?

Are you telling me nobody in your church is fluent in Hebrew or Greek? Obviously YOU aren't, but NOBODY in your "Church" either? You're all going by the translations of MORTAL and FALLIBLE men? SINNERS? With incredible biases?

Wow.

Cite of published peer review article, which factually supports the claim John's
Gospel was written by a church committee, please.

Even the copies of extant manuscripts need to be translated and interpreted by someone. The Jewish rabbis don't have any of the extant copies of those manuscripts. All the "Jewish" bibles are still works of human minds and subject to bias. For example, there is the Samaritan version of the Torah and the Jewish version, etc. And since the vast majority of modern, religious Jews don't understand ancient Hebrew, those "learned Jewish rabbis" would need to create translations into the language of the Jews' native country. And Jews live all over the world.

And how would multiple translations "definitely harbor bias"? Are you saying there was a huge conspiracy among different teams of scholars that spanned centuries!? If after your routine medical checkup, your doctor advises you that he detects that you have a very rare disease from which you will die, would you not seek a second opinion from a learned specialist? And if he confirmed the first doctor's opinion and you sought the opinion of another professional and he told you the same thing, would you then logically conclude that all those doctors had a bias? Perhaps they all had it in for you and wanted to create as much mental anguish in your life as possible?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to actually validate your bat-turd, crazy theory by pointing out all the "misinterpretations" of all those OT "Trinity" passages that you claim are in [all] the English translations, I suppose? After all...your theory is only as good as the concrete examples you can provide to support your theory. Time for you to produce concrete proof, Mr. No Answers Don't keep us all waiting in suspense. That would be many times worse than suffering from bible-induced sexual repression. :lol::lol: :coffee:

Impossible. I'm starting to believe you never had a straight-thinking moment in your life. As someone once said, "Wow!" :coffee:

No. I said it was an excellent post. That does not imply that I agree or disagree with any part of it.
That is not the definition in Webster's.