Space Merchant

An update, in the Truther community I found this, the whole religious aspect of BLM is being talked about now, since prior we talked about the political aspect of BLM, which turned out to be true, granted the history. The whole chanting thing, as is with the chant "kill all the whites" is a scary notion for the common man. But still, you have the Dems siding with them and paying for them as is with ANTIFA. Now we have another problem, which is added into the mix, Pride Month. We all know what happens during these events outside of the LGBTQ community. That being said, another fight with the Little Boy and cohorts, the Desmond Crew.

@Witness @4Jah2me @Srecko Sostar I may as well put The Trinity Team on the spot. You've all been asked several times to answer claim - To which all of you stated that regarding Revelations 5:10, that the latter's view is outside of the belief of what Christians who do not believe in the Trinity believe. As we can see, thanks to Witness' help, who did not see what I had unknowingly added to the response to her, it further proves my point. Granted none of you, at all, wanted to even quote the ones you called as lairs, I will do you the favor because it just shows what spirit you really have in this regard, and as I had told you 1 John 4:1 is the last thing you ever want a Christian to use against you in a discussion. I am marking this one because there are some Christians who really want to know who you guys are, granted I only quoted you to them. I will quote the Non-Trinitarian commentary again: Here is the view of the JWs, of which I had asked you guys several times to address: It is crazy, to me, as to how you guys could not do this simple thing. This view of theirs is not of their own doctrine, no, it is a teaching that people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, profess, regarding the Kingdom that is to come. As noted to Witness, there is only 2 views, and clearly the actual view has nothing to do with the belief of a Triune God concept, therefore, this view is indeed the correct one. The claim that the belief has been changed is false, granted the context of this verse is abundantly clear, hence, the reason why you all feared to even quote them or cite them, it was not that difficult. Next, we have the Literal Greek and the Strong's. The Interlinear Bible. #fcfdfd; border:0px solid #000000; color:#0a0a0a; font-size:16px; padding:0px; text-align:start"> This example makes a couple of things obvious. First, it is not possible to translate Greek words with only one English word. Certain Greek words need a number of different English words to convey their meaning. In addition, some words do not translate by themselves. Second, it is not possible to keep the same word order in English as in the original. To do so would make no sense whatsoever. This example illustrates this fact. While there are places in Scripture where the word order is similar to English, this verse is more the rule than the exception. It shows why translations cannot usually reproduce the word order of the original—it will not make sense in English. #fcfdfd; border:0px solid #000000; color:#40454d; font-size:16px; padding:1.3em 0px 0px; text-align:start"> The Value of an Interlinear #fcfdfd; border:0px solid #000000; color:#0a0a0a; font-size:16px; padding:0px; text-align:start"> An interlinear can be useful to find which particular Greek or Hebrew word that is used for the English translation. Beyond this, they are not really much help. In fact, they can be misleading to someone who does not understand the grammar of the original languages. The best thing a student can do is to learn the biblical languages. If this is not possible, then owning an interlinear will only be of limited use. #fcfdfd; border:0px solid #000000; color:#0a0a0a; font-size:16px; padding:0px; text-align:start"> Summary - Question 6 What Is an Interlinear Bible? #fcfdfd; border:0px solid #000000; color:#0a0a0a; font-size:16px; padding:0px; text-align:start"> An interlinear Bible is not really a translation. It lists the Hebrew or Greek word in one line and below the Hebrew or Greek word is the corresponding English word, or words, that translate the meaning of the original word. An interlinear will make two things absolutely clear. First, it is not possible to have one English word correspond to one Hebrew or Greek word—it just will not work. #fcfdfd; border:0px solid #000000; color:#0a0a0a; font-size:16px; padding:0px; text-align:start"> In addition, the order of the words in the original cannot be kept in the English translation. If one attempts to do this, it will not result in good English. Neither will it convey the message of the biblical writer. A translation needs to be able to use one or more English words to translate the corresponding Greek or Hebrew word. Furthermore, the order of the words usually has to be changed in the English translation to make sense out of the passage. Therefore, the interlinear only has limited value. Therefore, with knowing this information, a true and honest Bible reader will not spout the silly ignorance you guys are spouting right now. Learn what an Interlinear Bible is all about, as I told all 3 of you in the past, learn your Strong's, and as embarrassing as it is to say this to you - learn what the context of a Bible verse or passage means, I say this because this is not the first nonsense yous guys did, one with nakedness, the other believing God sends evildoers, the other conveying things that often does not make sense, but changes subject. Christians such as yourself can easily misguide and confuse others, as examples of this elsewhere had already been addressed. That said, it proves the point that you cannot rely on the Bible alone regarding analyzing verses, never have you done so, never will you do so, and I've yet to see any thread that correlates to that, for two of you attempt, thinking that Judge and Prophetess Deborah ran a church. This is what I have so far out of the 8 I messaged, once I get the final responses from the colorful ones, I will address it here. I am just making note as I go, so such ones can give answer. You really can't blame them either because speak the same thing. I'll probably make this none elsewhere just to further close this case. This time on the CSE and HSE, where the Biblical sane and knowledge tend to be, as I use to be.

I am not talking about Scripture, I am talking about the context of said Scripture that points to the view. You said it yourself, they are at fault in this regard, if that is the case, why not state their view vs. the actual view? This in of itself is deemed impossible regardless due to the fact the latter do not believe Jesus is God. Therefore, #e74c3c;">ALL Non-Trinitarians believe this regarding Revelations 5:10 - That Jesus is King, and his heirs, the chosen ones, will be with him in God's heavenly Kingdom. In this thread alone, we see that you agreed with the others to say that their view is incorrect, you even stated that it is to fit their doctrine concerning Revelations 5:10, but the reality is, they hold this view concerning this verse, therefore, they are not going outside of the legit context of this verse as you had claimed. I find it that this is the reason the lot of you did not want to point this out and only purposely do this because it is the fact they are JWs; and unknown to you I had paraphrased something without you noticing from Scripture that you and I both agreed with in the past concerning the chosen ones (I did this on purpose), thus, proves said context is true regarding Revelations 5:10, and the fact your previous responses on this point shows the hypocrisy. I'd also like to point out that your exegesis on G#1909 is a weak one, because we see here you are using your own thinking, therefore, no teaching as been blown into pieces, be it if any of the 1909s is used (on, over, above, upon). But what to expect from someone who attempt to add their own thinking into the verse to deem God an evildoer at one point, for that time, context and Strong's was used to correct you. That being said, they are indeed in the right concerning this verse, therefore, you and the others can be deemed as lairs because you said their view point is outside of what Christians believe. The problem here is because they believe it, as with 100% all Non-Trinitarians, including you. #e74c3c;">The other view is vastly different. Those that believe that Jesus is God tend to believe of the chosen ones, but most do not believe in a specific number. They state that Jesus is both Alpha and Omega, as is, him being, to quote most of them, "Lord God Almighty". We know that Jesus hands back the Kingdom to God, but the latter things otherwise, that this Kingdom is for him and by him. We can clearly see this contextual view of Revelations 5:10 is wrong. No Non-Trinitarian Christian would think of this view, let alone get this message from Revelations 5:10. So yes, according to you, it is man made, and yes according to you, this is a different doctrine in this degree, and regarding JWs and Restorationists, as with every single Non-Trinitarian out there, they do not believe this view, just as both you and I.

We are talking about Scripture. There are 2 views, #e74c3c;">one of Scripture and solely that, the other, uses Scripture based on Creeds. I feel as though the fact me mentioning this down is the reason why the latters are quite. So I ask you to prove the claim of yours. You said their viewpoint differs to fit their doctrine granted the verse in question. Can you show if it is in the wrong or in the correct. You, Witness, are a Non-Trinitarian, which is evident, clearly you understand what is conveyed here, therefore, it should not be this difficult to focus on the context of this verse, which can be narrowed down to a single sentence. You should be interested because Christians are preachers, they preach the gospel, the truth, are they not after all? Matthew 9:35; 24:14, 28:19-20 Mark 13:10, 1 Corinthians 9:16, Colossians 1:23, 1 Peter 1:12 and Revelations 14:6? Teachings that are far beyond of what is taught, we teach truth do we not (Galatians 1:1-11)? That being said, Regarding the verse, one should not be this withholding of themselves of elementary context.

You think Outta Here and I are the same because we whole the Non-Trinirarian view of what the verse tells us, Butler? That is the most absurd way of trying to get yourself out of the position of answering the very thing you claim as true. Question Dodging, as addressed to Srecko, will not work, granted 1 John 4:1 is still ongoing. Best know whenever a Christian uses 1 John 4:1 in discussion, there is a very legitimate and strong reason as to WHY it is being used. Rubbish, you sound like JB more because every time it comes to Scripture context and Strong's, JB said the same thing all the time. That being said, if it is rubbish, as you claim, prove it. I asked you many, many times, and every single time you evade and dodge. If you are going to make a claim, but not back yourself up and switch to silly appeal to motive, dodging and Jester in the King's court type of tactics, one can already see you are incorrect and in the wrong. What you stated, elsewhere, Christians deemed you a lair, so clearly they know the verse in question more. There is only #e74c3c;">2 viewpoints of belief on this verse, clearly the latter does not believe that God and Jesus are the same person, let alone the Holy Spirit being a person, so you have a pool to fill if you can prove they are Triune believers. What I find rubbish however, out of this discussion, you did not even know what God's heavenly Kingdom met, as is with location.... That is indeed rubbish, and you made the claim, not me, or anyone here, for Srecko and Witness' sake, but they would not point this out. You can be this serious with your logic? With the Bible? The Modern English Language to interpret the wording of the verse? Thank you for saying this because there is more out there that will have quite the laughs and giggles, as is with refutes with your response. Once I get more messages, I will quote them here just to show you how horrendous they see your claims and responses are. #27ae60;">You haven't proven your #e74c3c;">claim #27ae60;">yet, the spotlight is on you. #27ae60;">Remember, no #e74c3c;">question dodging#27ae60;">, in your case, you have to #e74c3c;">answer your own claims. If you do not know what 1 John 4:1 says, I will cite it for you: #c0392b;">Test the Spirits #2980b9;">Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The irony here is the Bible tells us, as with all other sources, for there is but 1 view for God's Kingdom. You can't be this Biblically dense, Srecko.... Amazing how the latter few agreed with you when the context says otherwise regarding God's Heavenly Kingdom. Even the JWs know that, as is with the majority. How on God's green earth you did not know this as is with 4Jah2me, who did not know this either? You keep running to hold the hands of JWs again, 1914 can be talked about, I am talking about God's Kingdom and the Chosen Ones. Why again are you deviating? If you claim that they are wrong about Revelations 5:10, and when asked to show us this claim, you could not, and now you go to another suibject the whole 1914 thing? Remember we are focused here, after all, you said one time you are always focused. This just shows you have unfounded claims, just pulling things out of thin air, hoping it would stick and admire the audience. There are been some very poor comments about you and 4Jah2me on this subject matter elsewhere, I'd gladly quote them if need; granted the reactions from these Christians, they themsevles point out to the fact that the Non-Trinitarian view of Revelations 5:10 is absolutely correct. That being said, Address the questions that you been asked to answer. If you can even do that, with 1 John 4:1 being applied here, I can freely deem you a lair, and most importantly, Scripturally blind.

@Witness And yet Biblehub correlates with the same thing, as is with EVERY KNOWN SOURCE, even Blueletter. The other problem is you pointed out to fit their belief, show us what you are conveying. I ask you, 4Jah2me and Srecko to point out as to how their view of Revelations 5:10 differs from nearly 100% of Non-Trinitarians. It is quite simple because even you stated they are incorrect, so according to the view of the common Non-Trinitarian, how are the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not even Trinitarians, differ when within Christianity itself there are only 2 views, 2 beliefs, 2 viewpoints regarding this same verse? You told me 2 times before, you are among the Chosen Ones, yet Kosenen and I thought otherwise, and even those out there who were confused at the information you post from that website you tend to use. So it is quite baffling as to how you yourself do not fully know well of what this specific verse means concerning people like you, that is, if you are indeed one because now the brow has been raised. As a side note, I have mentioned several times the one I admire, Solider of God, a Chosen One among those who is to serve with the Christ, knew fully well what Revelations is all about, when he became Christian, he started from Revelations because, although he is not the best speaker, let alone not too great to put things together to explain, he himself, when he was alive, knew what Revelations was about, even all of chapter 5, to him, it was no more as a puzzle, when put together shows spiritual context of the matter. If he were still alive right now, he'd be saying the same thing I am saying to you right now.

Yes, but you should be vigilant, for that is what the Bible tells us to apply, as is with discerning, and aware. You seem to be confused on the narrative of BLM and or anyone on the Left (Far-Left). BLM are Reformed. The Reformed wants liberty, they want equality (egalitarianism), progress, and lastly, they are internationalist, therefore, they demand more government, and the latter is primarily Democrat, likewise to you in the UK, that mentality is the same, granted, in the EU, The United Kingdom is a superior ally to the United States. They seek social justice through distributive social and economical polices, reasons why sometimes people refer to them as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). That is a misconception, they do listen to ALL the "men and women" even the statist (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), they are the Far-Left, so to assume otherwise, you can easily be branded as a Sexist by them, if we are talking about race, and to anyone who is White/Caucasian, they can be branded as a Nazi, whereas in this case, if met with ANTIFA the one they branded will quickly be surrounded by young people and college students fully adorn in black attire and ready to, "beat-down" the one they've branded. As for those called Sexist, the victim must be ready to have his or her life ruin. That is the game the Far-Left plays. Lastly, they list primarily to Democrats, who are partnered with the Government, in turn, the United Nations (for the UN has hands in a multitude of political and religious superpowers). Of course, the only side we must be on is on God's side, and of his Christ, all the more reasons why to remain neutral in the affairs of the world. However, that does not mean we should give up on being vigilant, for as Christians, as told in Scripture, we are the types to be watchful for all things even though we do not partake in them, this also connects to the fact that we are Preachers, despite these things, we preach to the people. There will always be more. There was a Truther out there who had nearly beaten to death when recording the events. The protesting will not stop anytime soon because as I mentioned to JWInsider and Matthew, the MSM is constantly throwing racism into the mix, moreover, the mob mentality has increased, so you can easily be in danger directly and or indirectly. London you say? That reminds me of something. This is recent. I am awaiting to see what honorable Anderson has to say about this. Anderson was a police officer, who was kicked out of the force for speaking the truth. Granted he is a Good Cop (former), BLM and the Left deem him an enemy, for they believe for the sake of one evil soul, all other good souls are guilty, which is a absurd way of thinking and application. People are unaware of China's movements, which is obvious, but best be careful of what the MSM is telling you, this goes for what you see and hear on Social Media, for even on those platforms, people lie and through misconception. The majority are irreligious. They have twisted the actions of Jesus and his words and of his God to the SJW narrative, BLM and others on the Far-Left has been doing this. I'm asking you though. You are very adamant of Child Sex Abuse, are you not? I am not talking about JWs, I am not talking about anything else but BLM. WE already know Child Sex Abuse, as well as violence against them is all over the place, as of recent, even in planes they are not safe. For I asked you this question because what is being pushed into the children, for example, is to hate another child who is white - that is one of many, many examples. So I ask you, #2980b9">since you are a parent, to make it easier for you, what is best needed to negate this kind of application of today's world, especially from BLM from entering into the mind of the child? What is the most important thing that defends a child from these things, mind you even the Bible mentions this. Granted, to JWInsider's credit, you mention CSA everywhere, this question I pose to you is an honorable contribution to the cause, for I have been fighting child sex and violence abuse, a lot of children look up to me because of what I passed on to them, hence the question posed I've integrated BLM.

All my sources are both fact and true. Nothing to be learnt? You do realize what Conveying Scripture is, if it were not for my conveying of the verse, you would not know what God's Kingdom location is, for I pointed this out. After the ESV you skipped over, there is an order to which Biblehub cites all translations. Therefore, you have suited yourself granted the other ones that does not correlate with what you stated previous are mentioned there. Regardless, that is what 1909 is, those words, nothing you can do can change this notion for this is true to all who are learning the literal Greek. The later statement you picked 5, I quoted you. I merely put all 23. If you wanted to focus on the first two, then you would not have a need to cite the others. Because you do not know anything about the Bible context as is with the wording itself from literal to English? It is right in front of you. Because I am, as is with my sources. God has a Kingdom, he has a King, the King has subjects who will rule with him from the heavenly Kingdom, to those who inhabit the earth. Tell me how is this wrong? Granted everything even the context is right? These are not my opinions, this is primarily Bibical Hermeneutics. And it takes literally 5 minutes of hermeneutics to realize the context of this verse alone, but for you, it must need to take the discovery of the Lost City of Atlantis to find out the meaning of a somewhat short verse. Also An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Bible hermeneutics is the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts. I consider the context of the verse as - both FACT and TRUE That being said, as you claimed this, to which Srecko sided with you. If I am in the wrong, all you need to do is prove it. You said that their viewpoint fits their doctrine and or beleif, that is the point and claim you made. If this is true, what is stopping you from pointing out how their viewpoint is wrong vs the truth of what the verse is telling us? The truth of the matter is JWs, as with all Restorationist and Non-Trinitarians believe and apply the same context of Revelations 5:10. The doctrine only changes if the individual is a Trinitarian. The simple change to bleieving that Jesus is God spins Revelations 5:10 into something else. I like this statement of yours The spotlight is on you, Butler.

No lie was ever stated and or deception. Why did that example of Butler suddenly interest you? Also, not a folly: John Butler said the same thing about me several times, to which I stated I am not superior, as is with his remark to religious studies, he allued to the same thing on the Islam thread too. Other times tells people that I consider myself inferior because of my background culture and race, but I told him otherwise. That being said, no one is superior, for Christians are humble and meek folk, be it knowledgeable or not. Because you, time and time again apply man's understanding, for if anyone on here knows, trying to interject that and go beyond what the Bible conveys, I make a response to a response. Glad to hear it because it amusing me too when facts is absolute over a man's feelings in terms of the Bible. No one here is knocking child abuse, we know what it is and we know of how damaging it is, some of us, including me, propose solutions to minimize this threat,a s is with violence. But there is always a time and a place to discuss that, not unexpectedly in, for instance, a thread about the New Covenant, or about Jesus reading the scroll of Isaiah only to be hit with CSA left and right. Simply start a thread on the matter, it is simply a click away. That being said, you once mocked Truthers.... You should know what Truthers have been doing concerning child abuse, let that sink in. That being said, concerning BLM, granted that is the subject matter, let's involve child abuse into the mix, do you think it is child abuse to teach children that one of another race is deemed an enemy? Moreover, should BLM succeeded in their narrative, how can you better help children that would be at an increased risk of sex and violence abuse (for if there is no one to stop the crimes, what do you think will happen if they demand no police and or those of law)? What solutions do you propose to help children in this current time? Most importantly, what is deem the strongest defense that shields children from abusers? I ask these things because most people who speak on CSA just shout it, but yield no sort of solution whatsoever, this is obvious because such ones bash others for it who are not equipped properly to deal with it, when the solutions are there. Child Abuse services tells us as a WHOLE to teach the child, something to which I mentioned to Butler from the website itself to which he disagreed with, to which srecko laughed at. These things we must apply for the betterment of the ones who take up the baton after us. But even with that said, everything I state is a folly, in your eyes, but what I say is both true and fact. I have been fighting child abuse since, as is with other things, you can do the same if you choose to. Clearly there are those who do want change and hate racism, but to go into the extreme to, while effect the children, so much as so, you have the influence of BLM in children shows and cartoons now. The mob mentality will be the end of educating the child; there are those, whom I know, who want to have children, but would never want to bring a child into today's world. That is how bad it is. There are more reasons as to why I deem the Leftist movement as a threat, this is merely the surface.

You were asked several times to state the claims of which you acknowledged and stated yourself. Evade [Verb] - escape or avoid, especially by cleverness or trickery.; avoid giving a direct answer to (a question). Also you were sure of yourself when you said I am a debater, to which I am. You even quoted methods of debate and as to how we see things, here is one for you to add to your list: Evading/Evasion (Question dodging) in ethics - Question dodging is a rhetorical technique involving the intentional avoidance of answering a question. This may occur when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response. You can always come back to attest to your agreements and claims, instead of misfire statements and remarks, next time provide what is being asked of you. Go have your beer, answer when ready. Or, it can be made easier for you. Regarding context, point out how they or what is wrong with how they see the context of the vs. version what the true context actually is, by your word. This I'd like to see.

Evading? Understandable, better than deviating. You can go for your drink, therefore you can login to still answer the question posed to you granted you agreed and backed the claim of "Different viewpoint" as is "Different Doctrine". when the context speaks for itself, as with the Strong's. That being said, I do not drink, never have, never will. As for I have reasons for such. The question will be waiting for you when you get back, so I will quote it again granted you see what you agreed with, and to what you must answer to the claim you side with:

What @Outta Here stated is identical to what I said, which is quite obvious on this thread alone, I quoted myself several times too. lol 🤣you can't be this serious. Are you? So now you backed yourself into a corner, what will you do now in this regard? Restorationist are not Trinitarians by the way, so clearly Outta Here does not believe Jesus to be God, therefore, the actual view of the common Anti-Trinitarian are 100% the same vs the latter, so now you just exposed yourself some more. Again, instead of tap dancing on ice and glitter, cite your sources, show us where the difference is regarding the context of Revelations 5:10 Also you are well en route to the realm of contradiction, I can already see that. I mean, you DID agree with 4Jah2me when he quoted some information from Biblehub, but you, and the others, why this terrified of commentary?

To correct you, my commentary sources were ALL pulled from Biblehub, Biblegateway and the Bible Study website; identical to Outta Here's responses. Therefore you created your own lie granted my responses. Therefore, no defeat here. Very obvious in my responses from yesterday. Thank you very much. That being said, prove it wrong, cite Biblehub and cite the JWs, show us as to where the difference is, which will be unfounded because the latter is not Trinitarian.

I am focused on the topic, but you are deviating. You were told to cite regarding Revelations 5:10, but you did not. Bringing up your errors relating to Understanding a Bible verse fits The Fable that is Srecko "of birds" Sostar. You say this yet the question was presented to the subject matter, you are and wanting to deviate because you have no evidence. This is a subject of Bible understanding of the verse in question, NOT about faith. Thank you for trying to commit to deviation again. Nowhere have I stated accepting faith, for my focus was the context and Strong's of the Bible verse in question. My version? The Bible speaks of Jesus as King of God's Kingdom and he has those ruling with him over the earth from the heavenly Kingdom. Tell me Srecko Sostar, how does this constitutes to speaking of Faith vs. speaking of what the Bible says? This no praise of anything. It is about the context and the Strong's of Revelations 5:10. Oh, the Deviation is strong with you, proving my point again and again. Amuse me some more. Where have I said this? Last I recall, my focus was on the viewpoint of Revelations 5:10, whereas the context is no different from others, expect if the person believes that Jesus is God, THAT IS WHERE the difference is. How so, here we see either you are not making sense, or the birds of yours did not take care of your bandwidth which results in you jumbling about. Please cite your sources if you deem your claim for Revelations 5:10 to be true in terms of them being wrong.

CNN - The Corrupt News Network. You know, CNN are, like the Dems, defend and has bailed out members of ANTIFA, and granted ANTIFA is the far left, CNN and all those connected are among the far left, just like BLM. As of now they are still enticing the fans of racism, the more you spark and tickle the ears of folks, the more dangers that will come. That is why I told you these protests will not die down anytime soon, especially when more people have died, and people turning on each other. That being said, Black Lives Matter is indeed a problem. A negative one, granted they have hit the religious and political scene, reaching that level.

@4Jah2me I always state "[a bit] unrelated" as well as"going back to the topic". When something I deem unrelated, I make a brief remark, and it is very brief. But as JWI pointed out, this was the case, seen by others. If we are to speak of a subject better, somehow CSA is always included, likewise, with other things. Butler also had a way of stating things out of nowhere, like for instance, I explained to him what a passage met and he just those in religious studies as you have. He called Billy and I parrots, but here we see you refer to Billy as a patriot. When I a fact, he always disagrees even though the fact is indeed true. Butler even tried to mock by linking me sites to Unitarian denominations, which you have done, both attempts failed, only this time there was no apology. Butler also had quite the interactions with Tom, nearly in every topic present, which mirrors you and Tom now, hence the interactions, which very similar. Good ol' Tom, right? Therefore it is not hypocrisy, the other thread this can be seen. Also, if I can bring up a majority of instances, even the one concerning Billy. That being said Butler adds CSA into the discussion of a Bible passage or a subject I present facts about CSA from the FBI and try to continue toe topic. Butler disagrees with the facts and deemed me a racist and and a parrot because I quoted the FBI - continues to add more CSA subject matter. I did not mind because I stated that is the FBI and CSA services facts from them, not mine. You can handle it you said? Recent topics said otherwise..... Thus making your claim null. @JW Insider I think he started one, but whenever I asked him and when others asked him about the current situation, he gave little to no update. What he pointed out was something that can be seen, as I pointed out, difficult to deal with, which is child on child abuse. As for his other topics, be it something of the Bible, Butler will make a point based on how he views it, yet when corrected, he is in disagreement and or does not learn from mistake, and continues to press the notion. That being said, I am strongly thinking the two to be one in the same. Other than that, granted the news media is sparking racial tension, I haven't seen them bring up any facts on the matter, and those who, on apps like instagram and the like, are spinning the information. Truthers out there are giving the actual facts on the statistics of the demographics who are doing crime, and them being killed by the police. Regarding George Fylod, he had a life that was not good, and some of his actions deem that, and later one, he may have been repentant but continue to deal with drug problems and have done minor things that are negative, but regardless of this fact, he should not have died in that matter. There are people out there that are trying to justify the death now, and using George's past against him, granted it was indeed bad, but they are using it every single time. On the other side of the spectrum, I think one of the police officers involved in his death got out, I'd have to look into it more. There is also more calls for government to be involved, and granted of what is being done, even the movement of the UN, it will be a while til we get back to normal, and may have to adapt to a new normal. Meanwhile... Covid-19 is spiking.

What I see here is that they make a claim, for example the verse in question, Revelations 5:10, the ones present here, specifically 4Jah2me, states that the wording is different, but when it comes to anyone with even the most elementary literal Hebrew/Greek backing, they can see that there is no word violation in this verse, for G#1909 is no other word outside of that Strong's. 4Jah2me's case would have been stronger IF he mentioned verses such as 1 Timothy 3:16, Revelations 1:11, and other examples because there are violations in these verses that can result is not just a mistranslation but a misunderstanding of the verse, other interesting ones would be such as Titus 2:13 whereas you have the involvement of the Grandville's Sharp Rule that can negate in a misunderstanding. The thing is, even outside of Jehovah's Witnesses, the facts and evidence is there. It is obvious that all 3 of them refuse to go to Biblehub, 4Jah2me only quoted 5 verses to fit his notion, when if one looks at the verse and the context on Biblehub, it, in of itself, backfires on 4Jah2me, as with Witness who also cited the literal Greek. As for context, it is very obvious, so obvious that a child can see it. It is the very reason as to why none of them want to go to the commentary for the context on Biblehub, and it is the very reason as to why 4Jah2me and Srecko refuse to cite the Jehovah's Witnesses view because it mirrors the commentary on Biblehub. In Christianity, concerning this verse, there is only ONE VIEW that differs, that is, if the person believes that Jesus is Yahweh God, THEN, there is a massive different in context. It is obvious that 4Jah2me knows that Jesus is the Son of God, but because the verse on Biblehub and the JWs community, it was too afraid to even bring up the context even though I told him to cite it several times, then I had to do it, which was expected. And to Witness' case, who claims to be chosen, should have pointed out the context, but said nothing, so to this alone I agree with others who called her chosen status into question several times. What is the reality is that Facts stand forth against the personal. For in a different term, Biblical Understanding is far above Man's understanding, granted 4Jah2me is mostly John Butler, he even points this out, but chooses to commit to Man's understanding instead. JWInsider pointed this out to me, should have seen it when 4Jah2me mentioned Billy and called him a Parrot, which Butler deemed me after I hit him facts. In short, they are bibical ignorant, for God commits no confusion. I can see that too, but you know what they say - clowns will continue to be clowns despite the camera is not rolling, especially those who are willfully ignorant. That being said, I did not want to use 1 John 4:1, but they pushed it, so they buried their own hands in the sand.

Hello. You mentioned the verse about sharpens elsewhere, a few days ago actually. I even told you, one who sharpens dwells in what is true, but one who dwells on misinformation as is with doing negative things, will only dull him or herself. When one sharpens, they become willful and strong, just even, but on the other side of the spectrum, when one becomes dull, they it will take some time for them, if they want to, to sharpen themselves, for the latter tends to refuse to sharpen themselves. That is why I conveyed that context of the verse in question to you when you misapplied it. Do you want me to quote you, if that is what you are asking because if I do so now, not only it will go away from the verse being talked about, well you always want to deviate of course, you will try to focus on that and not the verse in question. You did this before when you deemed God an approver of brazen conduct in terms of altering the one's body to another sex, when God detests these things, you later said otherwise compared to your original statement. That is why, you as a misguided soul, can be very contradicting, and that is just one of many examples. But it never stopped you for doing the same. I told you every time, I am from CSE, we bring up things said to pose example in discussion and or debate, so what did you expect? You did so several times bring up my statements, I do not stop you, and yet when I bring up anything regarding your statements, you take it as a threat. So you tell me, you think Witness and 4Jah2me agrees with your notion of Abraham being selfish? Or do you think they agree with you on God being an approver of brazen conduct? Clearly no, but they will agree with you here when someone else does it, but they won't when you do it. Mind you this has nothing to do with JWs, those examples were you using the Bible to speak some insane narratives that are more fit for The Twilight Zone. That being said, every time when it is about a subject, be it about the Bible, as I said to you, do so without holding the hands of a JW, but you continue to do so, you remain on them because without them, you cannot hold your own when it comes to the Bible alone, likewise with the others, even the Trinitarians, who they themselves are more capable despite the fact the Theology being incorrect. Christians and those who solely study the Bible on CSE, both current and former, always keep record [https://christianity.stackexchange.com/] and [https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/]. It is not for praise, it is for a call back and or refutation, even mistake made by the people, me included, I make note of, for mistakes are made if further research is necessary. I even said I am a debater, and a person who response to something that is incorrect and or confusing, etc. Therefore, unlike you, I do not believe rocks can literal speak, the Bible states this as something figurative, not literal. So clearly when it comes to Scripture, I will call back this notion of yours if need be when it comes to Biblical Understanding, and let's not forget, your favorite topic [Biblical Facts], that one really buttered your croissant. Last I checked, the ExJW, I cited said otherwise, both you and Witness stated you do not wish to learn more although the very source of yours proved you wrong, I rather not link said topics here to which can backfire on you. As we can see here, you are again deviating to a subject to which you were spoken to about, several times. So, I suggest you adhere to what is being asked of you regarding Revelations 5:10, so I ask you again, if they are in the wrong, cite what they have stated about Revelations 5:10, if you must, you can also cite Biblehub as I have, if the latter is incorrect, regarding context, as 4Jah2me has stated. Granted I even told you before you cannot hold your own with the Bible alone, I gave you a handicap to cite. It is not as difficult as 4Jah2me is making it out to be. So to this - I wait. You deviate, I can make a remark on what you conveyed just to further prove my case about the verse you mentioned a few days ago.

Of course not, Butler, to even think that is absurd. God's Word is as clear as day as is with the context, nothing has given the notion to go beyond that. God's Word is indeed inspired, not one is stating putting trust in man, but in what the Scripture is conveying. The learner and the wise can commit to knowing God's Word, but the latter, such as seen here, is asserting negativity in this regard. All Bibles are Translations of the earliest copies of Manuscripts that we have. We do not have the originals, the ones written by the ones chosen by God to write. So modern day translations are of the copies, reasons why Textual Criticism and Strong's exist is to translate and transliterate God's Word so that you yourself can clearly read. Oh so finally you clicked on the link I sent to you, and the irony of it all, you speak NOTHING of the commentary because from the way I see it, Butler, you are doing the same thing as you have done before. Now, in this regard, I can freely and willfully use 1 John 4:1 against you in this rebuttal. Let's begin: Let's look at the verses from Biblehub of which you highlighted (I can see you only cited 5 out of about 23 verisons of Rev.5:10 and it can easily be seen you did this for a reason), mind you, if you scroll down in Biblehub for THIS verse, this is what is shows us I did you the favor of posting it all here (only going to highlight Greek Strong's Number 1909) Granted we have ALL the translations on Biblehub presented in front of us (not your cherry picking of translation), we can see all of them has been using G#1909, granted REGARDLESS of the translation, even the KJV, there is agreement with the manuscript in question. As for the context of the Scripture, for some reason you didn't even bother to [A] scroll down to see the context of the verse in the commentary and You stated that Jehovah's Witnesses' view on this verse is vastly different, but granted what can be research of the view of the Restoration's on the matter, you are, as I can say this now since I am using 1 John 4:1 against you, are lying, thus makes you a lair. How and why can this be said? On Biblehub, here are some commentary notes of the context for Revelations 5:10: Now, 4Jah2me, you said it yourself, that the viewpoint is different, well, I can quote you in this regard, as for you, you stated: In fact, you, Srecko and Witness said exactly the same thing, but none of you even pointed out as to WHY it is different from the core belief of Jesus and the Chosen Ones, and I would expect Witness to speak on the matter due to the claim of being Chosen, which is interesting because if the verse is in regards to her, she should have said something, but no, so regarding this it is safe for me to agree with Kossnnen who even he called this into question, for he is actually reasonable.but no. I asked you several times to quote them, to cite their viewpoint, but every time you evade, you ignore it, and you pretend that you were not asked the question, and it is evident to the fact you tried to derail the question being interjecting Religious Studies and the Truther Movement into the discussion of a Bible verse. This is an appeal to motive because it was obvious you had no response because it would count against you. For if a man stated a claim about something from HIS word, why is it so difficult for you to bring it forth? I have done you the favor of not just finding on my own. Aligned with the commentary notes above, this is what I found, which is contradicting to your claim and or statement: Regarding Revelations 5:10, their viewpoint is this – That Jesus was resurrected from earth to life in heaven, and they believe that others will be with him too, for the Jehovah’s Witnesses are referring to the Chosen Ones, so we can see here, the viewpoint of nearly the majority of Christendom has not changed with them, for as we know, 100% of Restorationist hold this view. Let’s continue, they pointed out John 14:2, 3 whereas Jesus said to his apostles he is going to prepare a place for them. Moreover, Jesus stated he will come back to receive them home and they will evidently be with him. So, granted the context, your statement is in error, thus makes you lair, which can be seen as to WHY when asked several times, you did not want to bring up any citation and or source to your claim of them changing the viewpoint to fit their belief when in REALITY, There viewpoint is no different from what is conveyed by 100% concerning those who believe Jesus is the Son of God and believe that God gives the Bride to the Lord. Let’s continue, damaging, I know, but I am doing what you refuse to do, Butler. The context of Revelations 5:10 is as clear as the sky you look upon. The verse tells us, even Biblehub states this, it refers to those who are, the chosen ones, who are to reign with the Christ; which begs to differ the so called chosen one here who believes in the dismantling of God’s Order should have brought this up, but instead, becomes a church mouse. Let’s continue some more, The Chosen Ones, along with Jesus, make up the heavenly Kingdom, since I am citing the JWs’ view, they see this Kingdom as a Kingly government, to continue, this Kingdom will eventually rule over the inhabitants of all the earth and bring blessings to them. From where? For this is what the Bible shows us this: The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” Regarding The Kingdom and the position of the Chosen, as with the Christ. But as can be seen, you "laughed at" God's Inspired Word, which shows your spirit clearly. This Kingdom is Heavenly, and they, those chosen by God, govern from up above, as with the Christ, who is seated at the Throne of David. To continue, this is the Kingdom that Jesus told his followers to pray for as can be seen in the Sermon of the Mount found in The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6 (Matthew 6:9, 10), to which Jesus states the sanctification of The Most High’s name, who is our Father in heaven. Jesus states for God’s Kingdom to come, and for it to take its place as in Heaven also on Earth. Now granted I did what you alone cannot, tell me, as for your claim, how is their view vastly different to fit their beliefs if the core beliefs of Jesus and the Chosen Ones on Zion has not change for anyone expect those in Trinitarianism? The VIEW IS ONLY DIFFERENT (and there is evidence to that) when the latter believes that Jesus is God, for when it is under this ideology, THAN the view differs. Reasons why I referenced The KJV-Onlyist crew because they primarily believe that Jesus is God. Granted the Strong's has never changed, the viewpoint is found in the commentary notes I listed yesterday, I did you the favor of citing it again, or you can go to Biblehub and read it for yourself, that is, if you care to even look it up, but last I checked, you are incapable of doing the research, you even exposed yourself yesterday in this regard. Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God knows that God has chosen him as King. As a King, he has those under him, the Chosen Ones who bear God's name and Jesus' name on their foreheads, who will rule with our Lord, our Christ - Jesus. The Kingdom of which God gives to his Son, he will be stationed their with the Chosen ones to reign over the earth from there. If you cannot take that from the context, this just shows you are Bibically ignorant, and you had the audacity to even go on Biblehub and not even look at what was stated there, which is exactly the same thing. The Lamb is worthy, the Lamb takes the Scroll, and he is exalted. This just shows you do not understand anything. Are you literally correlating this with English understanding? If you do not mind, this statement alone I will save, to show those in the Hermeneutics forums, for they themselves will joyfully get a quick out of this, so even there they will immortalize this. All that said, this mentality of yours befits the fact you deemed nakedness of a certain Biblical person as literal.... It is no wonder when it comes to the Bible, such ones as yourself are lacking, for you even claim in the past you lack understanding. The the Greek word epi, translates to “over, on, upon, above, etc” anything pertaining to that Strong's and it's grammatical structure. The funny thing is there is no way on God's green earth you can refute the fact that this is a different Strong's number because any honest Bible reader, as seen by nearly ALL the commentary on Biblehub and elsewhere, they can understand the context of this verse. If you think as such and convey in such a manner, as you exposed yourself to present here, it begs question, do you even not just read your Bible, but understand what God's Inspired Word is saying? That being said, God's Word is inspired, the only true thing you have said thus far, but apparently, The inspired Word cannot be understood by you at all if you think if the Strong's or the manuscript as incorrect when transliterated without any credible proof of mistranslated, This is the same thing you have done with the term "nakedness" thinking a follower of Christian had done the literal when the Bible points to the actual true. Clearly no, the Strong's helps the reader understand the literal Hebrew to Greek, and it's move to the Modern English speaking Language. God's Word is understood by what the verse and or passage is conveying, so in this instance, you applied your own understanding of the verse rather than what God's Word is telling you, which is evident in the very beginning of this thread. The irony here is I stated context many times before, so this claim of yours was only said to commit to another appeal to motive, but instead, it shows your ignorant nature and the fact you have nothing whatsoever to back yourself up, therefore, you are but a mere man standing alone here. You only speak when you deviate. And yet our Apostles study by means of Hermeneutics and the like. Do your research on the Gospel of Matthew, I agree with how that came to be, and thank you for showing that if this was with Matthew, you would also disagree.

Let me help you with that, focus on the verse in question, I could not find "Glasglow", "Abraham being selfish" or "God approving brazen conduct" on Biblehub either. The website is verse associated and commentary filled. Perhaps instead of ignoring the subject matter, check the links. You use to favor biblehub yet when it does not fit your narrative you willfully ignore it. https://biblehub.com/revelation/5-10.htm Also if you forgot how to use your favorite website, here is a tutorial, she pretty much points out some of the things I pointed out I linked you the same website a long time ago relating to another verse, same correlation with Bible Strong's in the past: This goes back to the lesson on Biblical Facts, for you really cannot do much if it is the Bible alone. You've proven my point yet again. From even then to now, 2020, you still haven't learned, therefore that remark of sharpens of which you stated is contradicting.

@4Jah2me Well it does not stop you from citing their viewpoint. If they are in the wrong and or misleading as you claim, can you cite it here please? Even with the Strong's not in use, the context is still there, to which you said it is in err. Also Well if you checked the BibleHub it shows you the usages of all words in the Strong's which are appropriate for the verse in question. That being said, you have not proven anything pertaining to a Greek violation and nothing in this verse points to the latter being different. That being said, like I said, if Strong's were to be ignored, you'd have people believing God is female, or that Jesus is cruel, which is indeed a reality for those who ignore it. This goes hand and hand with the "nakedness" verse to which was discussed in the past. @Srecko Sostar That is an understanding based on as how you view it, but the context and the Strong's gives us that understanding, it shows us what is being conveyed. The context of the verse in question has not changed and everyone agrees on this notion concerning the message itself. I do not see why you, Butler and everyone else is afraid to even go on Biblehub, let alone Bible Gateway, to which some of you use to use here alone. @JJJ-AUSTRALIA Former JW or not, to go around Strong's and the context of Scripture speaks volumes, a problematic issue in the KJV-Onlyist community as it is here. The conveyance of the verse is the same even outside of the faith community in question. Also way ahead of you, YHWH is a transliteration, there are 2 modern variations of YHWH in the modern language, Jehovah and Yahweh, Yehovah. Depending on the translation you will see one of these variations. The Tetragrammaton is H#3068. I said this to a Trinitarian a while back who said Jesus is YHWH. Ephesians 1:20-22 speaks of The Christ being at the right hand of God, while Philippians 2:9 speaks of Jesus not taking plunder to be equal to God. God’s name YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) is a great name as is spoken of to be The Personal and Divine Name, the Proper name of the God of Israel: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm | https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=h3068 Another factor is Jesus’ name [Jesus] means Yahweh/Jehovah is Salvation (Yah/Jah saves for short), evidence of the StrongÂ’s even shows us too: https://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm   | https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=esv&strongs=g2424 That being said, the problem I see here is not the verse in question, but, because they said it, yet, when the real information is addressed, with source included, and the Strong's to back it up.

That is what I was thinking, even speculating granted the recent discussion with him, for Butler tends to add things out of nowhere into a discussion, but I was not entirely sure. At least someone figured that out, and it did not take a Batman level of detective work to do it. As for the topic at hand, things are getting a bit ridiculous. There are people out there, even in the black community that are referred to as race traitors for not agreeing with BLM, let alone if they speak of statistics involving police killings. And as of recent the MSM is still throwing the cards of racism on the table and people are just grabbing the cards, so to speak. Not sure if you see this but the BLM aka now dubbed the Woke Religion of the Leftist had an interaction with Jacob, Mayor of Minneapolis. That being said, people think all police officers are guilty, and are not good; all evil, which is absurd. There are a few bad eggs, and like any institution and or group, there are some bad people, they do not define others, namely officers like Anderson of Seattle who spoke of the police while back while in the department prior to him being fired.

@4Jah2me It is a defense of the Strong's and it's correlation with Scripture. The most jarring thing is even with the evidence in front of you, you ignore it. You said there viewpoint is different than you it yourself, as I invited you to post said viewpoint. Which, as with all pertaining evidence, is counted against you. So like you, I am suppose to accept the fact that congregants poison their members and never die? Am I to accept and support unity despite sexual sin being rampant? Am I suppose to believe that because of someone's standing he kills his own people for honor and is justified by it? Or am I to believe everyone is guilty, hence to be quick with judgement despite only One holds the power of said judgment? Clearly no, because I speak truth doesn't mean I have to succumb to the inability to understand things. That is why I encouraged you to do research. A quick glance at something does not negate to automatically understanding Strong's. It takes time, it takes understanding and patience. Understanding Strong's is what enables one to the realm of Hermeuntics and study of Scripture in a proper way, so when a situation comes, such as this one, the truth can be spoken, the same case I make with KJV-Onlyist. God's Spirit is involved when the early writings were written for God has chosen these men do to as such, from Moses, to Paul, to John, etc. These men were indeed spirit filled, and God is the author of what they have written, hence Paul said in his letter to Timothy, it is God breathed. Granted that we do not have our original manuscripts, we have the copies, of which those long after the Apostles have to work with. From translation to translation and eventually into the modern tongue of which you, me and everyone else here speaks, clearly our modern tongue is not literal Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. That being said, Revelation 5:10 is as clear as day of what it means, what it is conveying. I don't see how that flew past you in this regard. And what does my study of religion and all this of Abrahamic Faiths have to do with this subject matter? Is this another tool of deviation on your part because you are unwilling to provide your claims? Yes I have studied religions for the very reason to counter falsehood and misconceptions. Both you and I can agree that God is not Triune, without the Strong's or Textual Criticism, that concept would be the end of what is true. This is one of the reasons as to why we speak up. That being said, you have now moved from the study of Scripture to the study of religion. To deviate from what the Strong's pinpoint that is true, JB? When it comes to study and teaching, the reader seeks the spirit from God to enable that person to understand. The truth of the matter must be looked for, otherwise, confusion and falsehood will become the person. Again, we are on the subject of a verse in the Bible, adding on to deviate from the topic at hand is not going to help you here. Granted When it comes to this variation of Textual Criticism, this is where I am most serious. So deviation is, to me, seen as being evasive in the wrong way. Now you are tending on another territory. What does me being a Truther have to do with the discussion at hand? Mind you, quite random, as is with the religious studies part. A Truther is someone who speaks the truth and finds truth. Outside of Christianity, the role of the truther is see what is true and push forth that truth whereas the world sees such things as right, we see it as wrong. For instance, when it comes to homosexuality, Truthers do not condone that conduct, let alone teaching children immoral and brazen, we speak against it. That being said, I do not know as to why you interjected Truther here, is that to commit mockery of something? Granted Truthers, in this sense when it comes to immorality are the ones who indirectly give you help by their actions of their hands? That seems like an appeal to motive granted you really do not have anything to help your case - I remain unfazed by that attempt because an appeal to motive just shows the cracks in the armor, in this case. No chance? This just shows you do not even know what that term means, yet for some reason you had the idea of including it in a discussion for Bible Translation, as you did, with religious studies. Strong's are not complicated. That is why I linked you my thread on 1 Timothy 3:16, that there is an obvious example compared to Revelations 5:10. What are you talking about? Also, watch the language (Matthew 15:11; Ephesians 4:29; James 3:10) What are you talking about? You went from Rev. 5:10 to religious studies, to truther, to this... How am I sitting on the fence for agreeing with the Strong's and context? You said the viewpoint is different - then let's see it, I invited you to cite their findings on the verse. If I can cite my findings on the matter, what is withholding you from doing the same if you stated the viewpoint in the realm of belief is vastly different? That being said, Strong's Concordance on the literal Greek is not going to show you any mercy if the claim is no different from 99% of the commentaries. I don't get what you are saying, granted the origin of T.A used in their translation that, in this case, predates them....

The Duma, The Kremlin, and the RoC have specific targets, not just in faith communities, but other groups such as protesters, activists, etc. There are those in their system that also defend such folks, often times can cause some sort of stigma. On the other side of the spectrum, The RoC does not have a need to press them or anyone else as much because they've caused enough damage. That being said, ever since 2016, Cyrill and the Pope and all that transpired from there, those who are among the Conquest for peace and security will never go against each other apparently. If you dwell on all this Russia, there is more that is deemed unknown to you. When I mean search all things Russia, you'd have to type things in the Russian languages to find out.