Space Merchant

I always keep tabs it just comes from memory. Even on myself in order to recall something, hence my memory is as thick as the skin of a rhino. Others have done the same, in my regard. Anyways, But you have to convey the statement correctly otherwise there will be confusion. You should know this because the both of us stated the same thing in the past, but now here it is different. So in regards to the latter, the claim of denying of which you provided is in err.
I believe I lectured you in the past of what a Benefactor is. A Benefactor (Biblical term, not the modern English term, yet somewhat similar), well the word used in that verse comes from the word (Ancient Greek: Εὐεργέτης, Euergétēs), which means that an individual who is doing good to and or for others. The term is associated with honorable titles for important people, for instance, a Prince, for these people are recognized for their contributions and the like. These Benefactors are the types to take a lead among the people, however, it should not be confused those among the Christ, to mimic as if they are and or align themselves with world rulers. Faithful servants of the Lord are the opposite. They do not partake to be like rulers of the world, but rather, they focus on what it means to be a Christian, a follower of the Christ and lead by example and lesson, as the marginal references in the verses you provided provides context.
In terms of ministering and serving, this citation from verse 26 gives the answer. Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, which describes the work of those holding religious office within the Christian Church Congregation. We had this conversation parallel conversation on this before, to which you accused me of being misogynistic for agreeing with Scripture.
That being said, to deem them as benefactors in this regard when they are not is a misapplication of the verse, therefore, your mixing of verses to fit your own exegesis, as I have and the other alleged chosen one this forum call you out on. This is especially the fact you are dealing with modern day Restorationist, for regardless if they are striving to be of the early church and or lacking, Restorationist will never be caught dead granted of what you claim. It is in-bedded in their Christology after all.
Clearly, but this is not the case, and you make this claim when the latter is the opposite, hence why I pointed out it does not make any sense. This goes back to our early discussion about the Spiritual Stones of the Spiritual House, which what you said there contradicts present day regarding the matter. I do not see as to how and why you fancy misapplication.
That being said, my question to you is what if you were in the had said something that had denied even what the Christ as taught, should we look at you as the same, that is, using your claim? Because anything can easily be linked should you say what is not true in regards to question.

@Witness That statement does not make anyone correlation to any sense. To deny Jesus is to deviate from what he teaches, to what his God said unto him, unto the people [you]. As pointed out before the notion of Excommunication has indeed started with the Christ, this was not engineered by any man, as the Bible shows.
Also you are missing verses again, just wanted to point that out, for possible the 33rd time it seems.

Strong's Concordance huper: over, beyond, fig. on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning Original Word: ὑπέρ
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: huper
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-er')
Definition: over, beyond, on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning
Usage: gen: in behalf of; acc: above.
I don't see the word substituting there.  And :-
Ephesians 6 v 20 
New International Version
for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

New Living Translation
I am in chains now, still preaching this message as God’s ambassador. So pray that I will keep on speaking boldly for him, as I should.

English Standard Version
for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

Berean Study Bible
for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it fearlessly, as I should.

Berean Literal Bible
for which I am an ambassador in a chain, that in it I may be bold, as it behooves me to speak.

New American Standard Bible
for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
I don't want to listing them all but you can if you want to. Still do not see the word 'Substituting' here. 
The 2 Corinthians 5 v 20 scripture in the Interlinear. 
 
 

Now you see why I am strict and critical when it comes to misconceptions and Bible Strong's - being caught off guard it can easily be used against you when someone of the latter viewpoint is attempting to prove Jesus is God (Yahweh/Jehovah).
Jesus.Deserter is an example of a mainstream Christian affiliated with the belief the The Trinity and as pointed out in the thread you started, you can see how vastly the view differs. Lucky for you he is a low level Trinitarian, for he targets JWs, not just to lure them out, but anyone who does not believe Jesus to be God.
To the common Trinitarian, if you believe Jesus is not God, you are against the truth of the Scriptures, and you are deem someone who is in denial of Jesus' Deity and or that of him being God - therefore, destined for eternal hellfire torment, as they believe also.
Trinitarians view us, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, as false and or incorrect and deem us as prophets of falsehood, moreover, their influenced is spread to those who, the majority to produce falsehood, misinformation and twisting information. It is nothing to do with teachings of anything else, but rather, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit alone (The very core of Christianity itself, as is with anything that predates Christianity), hence this "war" I have been talking about is the whole Non-Trinitarian vs. Trinitarian situation we've been at since like the 4th century, and even in present day it is far more critical and serious due to the fact that mainstream Christianity is on a decline due to Christian minorities and Islam.
That being said, regardless if you are among Jehovah's Witnesses or not, granted JWs themselves are Non-Trinitarian as is among Restorationism (something Masons and Trinitarians often go after), you will still be branded as such, they even often brand Muslims as JWs outside of conversation or debate of the Crucifixion, since you are in the UK, this is often the tactic used in Speaker's Corner there.
Anyone who is not up there in Bible knowledge, they also mock by saying "running away", unlike the notion of proving claims granted they deem the latter as cowardly.
That being said, he used a Greek word and Strong's in his response to you, for there is good reason he skipped over me. In this case, you legitimately have a chance to prove the Trinitarian wrong here.
@Srecko Sostar That will not do because as I told 4Jah2me, Trinitarian can easily use those verses against you. This is why you need to utilize marginal references, as I said elsewhere, even Strong's can help you here, mainly in regards to John 1:1.
To the both of you, to combat The Trinity Doctrine as Non-Trinitarians, you really need to build up that muscle, that muscle being Scripture.
Like I said, in this situation you are dealing with Trinitarianism now. Therefore Bible verses/passages you have to know what connects to it, the references, this also goes for Hebrew and Greek Strong's as well and context because John 14:28 can easily be spun around to their favor if you do not go about things with discernment and or unprepared. That being said, the narrative here, on his part is the ideology, the view of this verse being seen as Jesus having 2 natures that correlates with the view of Godhood.
Granted he is err, his view is an obvious one (The Creed he quoted).

Did you see the reply? There is only one view, to think Non-Trinitarians in general have a different belief and or viewpoint is deeming the latter as false, when it is only the Trinitarian view of the matter which is the negative one.
Only the question raised, I even told you from the get go after citing 1 John 4:1, granted it is a serious verse to use.
Because you are a Non-Trinitarian yourself, that is why. You know the position of those who will reign with Christ, yet if the latter has the exact same view, you deem it is a different viewpoint, which is incorrect. Even here it can be seen that you are one, just as I am, Witness and the others.
You can't be this serious....
Clearly no. The thing is here I am telling you credible truth, but the problem here is you deem otherwise. Granted it is 100% true, the problem here is because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach it. You think this is about reputation? That is exactly what Butler said when it comes to facts to which he previous deem as true, but later false - a spun around contradiction engineered by one's own hand.
No one is going to extremes, it is not like the latter does any different anyways.
Because I am one. As is the others. The difference, in the core, is that I do not believe Jesus is God himself.
Your responses on this forum shows that you are a Non-Trinitarian. You Believe God is the Father, do you not? That Jesus is his Son whom he sent, do you not? Clearly you do not share the viewpoint of our opposites, this goes for everyone on this thread alone.
How is it a guess when you riddled this forum if the Non-Trinitarian view outside of anything pertaining to JWs or CSA? Must I quote you now?
I have. The claim of yours is that Jehovah's Witnesses have their own teaching concerning Revelations 5:10, to which the viewpoint is exactly the same as all Non-Trinitarians, Biblehub, Bible Gateway, Blue Letter, even Witness' comment from an older discussion I added on purpose, to which you deem as incorrect. Srecko, being as he is agreed with the other Christians, when I said the same thing, to which he deem as wrong.
The Non-Trinitarian view is not primarily associated with Jehovah's Witnesses due to the fact this view has been here for a long, long time on opposition to the latter view.
Next we have the wording. There is no issue with the wording because due to the fact there was no violation of the Greek Language, from commentary to scholarly notes, all stating the same thing, and understand clearly the focus of the verse in question - rulership and authority. The irony here is all marginal references for verses 9 and 10 points to the same conclusion. But you are reading the verse as normal as possible granted, an honest Bible reader can see the conveyance.
Thus both claims have, easily been rectified with Biblehub only - literally. It only took one commentary note and a Strong's number.
Judged for telling and speaking the truth? Seriously?
Perhaps it is not the verse in question that needs the context explained, but rather, your convolution.
The context is clearly for anyone to understand? So you must I quote a former JW then? She's Non-Trinitarian by the way:

@4Jah2me @Arauna Since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic, the rich and powerful have been moving out of the states, specifically New York. They have secondary homes outside of the states, those that got out evaded the early lockdowns, now we have the protests. Some of them even encourage protesting, but best know if the rioters and looters come to heir doorstep, they will fight back or tell them to attack somewhere else. Some of these rich folks, their children, high school and college, are part of some far-left movements, for instance, ANTIFA.
So technically how they sound "BLM! Yeah! burn and loot everything to the ground.... But don't attack my property, bob is up the street, go to him instead".
Black Israelites, however, I had quite the history with them.

@4Jah2me Correct. The verses in question regarding Jesus doing God's Will, start with John 14:10, from there you can find the marginal references by the context itself, from there, it would show you the verses in question to prove this to, essentially, a Low Level Trinitarian.
John 14:28, when Jesus said the Father is greater than him, you can do the same method with the cited above, however, Trinitarians will use this verse against you to state otherwise, and can easily spin doctor this verse to make Jesus appear as though he is God or equal to The Father (you may occasionally see the fully man fully God mantra at times), in addition, granted the other thread regarding Strong's, they can use the word "Good" to justify themselves, which will result in the notion of God and Jesus being different incarnations of the same God. The counter jab in this situation is the marginal references for this verse, and the context itself. 
As for God speaking to Jesus, same thing with the above two examples, otherwise, you will be hit with Trinity assertions of this moment in Scripture, since, we now have the Holy Spirit involved.

That is going to be a problem, granted CSA is minimized, the idea of no police at all will result in would be abusers and current to come out of the woodwork, thus should one get any ideas, it will come to that. Essentially, you will have the purge, Mad Max, Gotham City, Deus Ex Prague all mixed into one, that is a recipe for disaster. This will result in Vigilante Justice to increase (There was literally a guy in a Batman suit walking about a few days ago, and a guy fending off attackers with a sword), granted the far-right are the types to, as what can be seen, practitioners of the second amendment and will use it. The irony is before COVID-19, people were buying guns in surplus, and still they continue. The guy at the fish market can be his own judge, jury and executioner, and granted these guys are locked and loaded, the bad guys are doing the same thing too, if it comes to that.
There is a possibility, for people are talking about Civil War, even my own brother says this, and he is not as up there in the updates compared to me.The rich moving out, etc. Well, if the Left and the Right clashes again but at a higher level, they have done so before, several times.
That being said, children are indeed vulnerable if it comes that not, not just CSA alone, but by influence, i.e. you have children attacking people, thinking they are justified and in the right. Look at the UK for example.
The bells of Lawlessness is ringing louder and louder by the day, as pestilence spreads throughout broken economical powers, as more and more people come out to play for the wrong reasons, but among it all, a new religion somehow is born.
Yikes, edit to come to the realization I may run into The Black Isrealites again.

Probably a subject not worth answering on.
Those with spiritual wisdom know the Almighty God is greater than Jesus Christ. 
Jesus said so many times that : "the Father is greater than I am"  and such as : "I do nothing of my own initiative but only that of the Father"  And Jesus said he was sent forth by God. 
As  for the Holy Spirit, we know it is God's 'active force', not a spirit being. 
If Jesus was God then who resurrected him when he was killed ?
And who was it that spoke from heaven saying "This is my Son whom I approve " 
(Sorry quotes are not perfect but close enough to give meaning). 

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.

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.

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.
 

Kairos Movement, same old magic tricks. We had this rodeo show before, Jesus Deserter. Anything you say cannot harbor the Trinity as legitimate truth. You, s a Mainstream Christian never learn, and unlike the multitude here, granted their view of Non-Trinitarianism, and or with JWs, even if they make mistake, even on my account if I make a mistake, I, and even they themselves can see your folly.
Refuted within a second.
 
Interesting this guy is the mirror image of David Wood, who, he himself, cannot hold himself in a debate, especially with Muslims.
 
EDIT:
This pastor also believes NON-BIBLE CANONS TO BE INSPIRED WRITTEN AND TRUE. This alone further shows us that this pastor is mainstream, just like you. No true Christian would believe in a false narrative of the Christ, or words added by someone else and not from the Apostles and other writers.
Shame on you.

Research from the University of Maryland and Michigan State University confirm the results of a more limited study a couple years ago of the Philly Police Dept—that the race of the officer is not a factor in who gets shot. Yet the MSM would all but have us believe that the entire purpose of the police is to shoot back people. One can only wonder at their motive.
https://research.msu.edu/the-truth-behind-racial-disparties-in-fatal-police-shootings/

Lack of Faith? The fact that I agree with the Bible that tells us the authority position of the Chosen Ones? Conveying what is true is from the Scriptures, not ideas of my own, but I'd like to see you prove it, but with every instance I say this, you dodge because there is nothing of you to be deemed as truth, but rather, unfounded.
Many Christians? Not every Christian believes in permanent salvation. Not every Christian believes in once saved always saved. The idea you spout, Srecko, is of mainstream Christendom. The Bible tells us clearly that Salvation can be gained, as is with it being lost. Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ, the brother of James, states that when it comes to maintaining one's faith, one's path of salvation, it is a hard fight. Salvation is not something permanent, more or less, it is like a component to the muscle you work out every day, one's faith.
I told you before, I am strict, and I am a debater I came from that comment and this section of the forum, to me, is still seen as controversial posts as to the notion stated, at the time, you can be tested and or challenged. When it comes to Bible defense, that is where I am at most serious, and even more when I am applying 1 John 4:1, which is the last thing you want used against you, in a discussion.
Again, you keep throwing Jehovah's Witnesses in there like it is the Ace in your deck. Again, even without Jehovah's Witnesses, even without the Watchtower, what I have pointed out, granted everything I stated HAS A SOURCE CONNECTED TO IT, is correct. More so, even scholarly and commentary notes point to the same conclusion.
The Bible is God's Word, we are to not just read it, we are to understand what God is telling us through his word, so there is no question as to what Revelations 5:10 is conveying here, even Christians elsewhere agree to the same thing, as is, with even some former JWs also pointing this out.
How is there a disagreement of the authority and rulership of the Chosen Ones, along with the Christ, rule over the inhabitants on the earth from God's Heavenly Kingdom? All Non-Trinitarians believe in the same thing. Explain yourself.
These are not my ideas, as you claim, that statement alone proves your ignorance. The Bible is not wrong either. Willful ignorance on your part, granted you claim the latter as to create their own view, but cannot back up your claim.
Reading isn't enough, you are to study it, to meditate on it, recite, even continue to learn and grow from it. I compare faith to a muscle, the Bible and all things connected to it can be seen as the protein, in this sense. Protein as is with Protein Synthesis enables growth for the average bodybuilder or powerlifter, in this same regard, a Christian builds the muscle, their faith, using the Bible. There is no end to Biblical Knowledge for we do this on the daily.
Granted their leaders are the application of the Faithful Servant notion, their position is in regards to spiritual food and milk to the adherents, is it not? You yourself stated this in the past, even 4Jah2me said this many times, why is it now you go over what you said?
Can you show me as to where I made claim to God's Spirit being nothing? This is a strong case granted I take issue with those who speak otherwise of God's holy spirit.
Because  I have evidence of you in this regard, many, and I can link the threads, cite the quotes, as is with the ridiculous ones you spouted in the past. I invite you to prove that statement - God is my witness in this regard, so let's see it.
No one is fighting for "their version of faith" just as no one is fighting you for "your acceptance of organ changes that befits what God hates the most", granted I am surprised you do not own a Pink Bible yet.
The focus here is Revelations 5:10 in terms of Concordance and the context of the verse in of itself that primarily focuses on the Christ and the heirs. Deviation again on your part, for granted the view of the verse.
Theories? You think this is a theory? Dense as a stone you are for thinking such, I hate conspiracy very much, you know this! What to expect from a man who tried to convince me that inanimate objects can speak....
Well that is the point, I have been helping you, as is with others, Greek Language forms and Strong's in the past, I even told you to look into it, some of you tried, even Witness, but continue to fail at it, to which I then encouraged to learn the basics. But here we are, Mushroom Kingdom World 1-1, from the beginning, and yet again, you express and show the fact that you are incapable of learning.
even if the truth is in front of you, from non-JW sources that state the same thing, even sneaky quotes from scholar notes and commentary, but still, it is not enough. Granted what is stated is 100% true, you do not want to accept it because the JWs believe it too, granted the view in question held predates them even.
What they said was exactly the same thing I said. The first one, she linked her sources, as with sources from the Jehovah's Witnesses, the other pointed out sources from even Former Jehovah's Witnesses, that, in turn, state the same thing I have said, to which I will cite them later.
That being said, looks like I did not need to have Batman level of detective work to expose you, because you just exposed yourself with this statement alone, and it shows you did not see the response in the email that pointed out that the view is identical with the JWs.
Yes, just as I was right, in regards to them, and the following responses, they are right as well. They are randoms whom I had credited in the past, as is with the others. Regardless, we are of the same community of Bible readers. Granted the SE is a large place.
The irony, I take it the latter did not favor you this time because that notion. And of course, you don't like it, but I don't care, another one in the books for "Biblical Facts", this time regarding Strong's (context as well because of the whole notion you and Witness believed in churches and church leadership in Ancient Israel and the like)
You just made my old statement more relevant now
 

Yes, especially the one about a CSA case JB knew about, wondering about whether some here thought he should report it. This is why I said "rarely." But I'm  hoping to say no more about JB, CSA, 4J except for what might be relevant to this topic. I shouldn't have made the Beatle's joke at his expense, but 4J was the only one I thought of with a particular connection to the UK.
True, and it's a shame how a movement that could have been a simple cry for human for justice, and which had prided itself on an intelligent platform, can be so easily subverted. Not just from the outside, but from irrational people who tend to rise to the top of so many organizations. And even if the non-thinkers don't rise to the top, their voices will surely drown out those who are truly sighing and groaning over this system of things. These types of failures of all governments (to meets the needs of all the people) gives us a renewed impetus to preach our own version of reform. And those sincere among them who join our movement might find some measures of justice already available to them, and at the very least, a true and realistic hope for future justice.
Certain types of governments respond well to this means of creating change and progress. And it really is more difficult for some groups and races to effect needed change in many countries in this world. In some countries, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and many others, real racism is part of their literal constitution; SJWs need not apply. But racism is only a part of the story, smaller than most people think when they see it coalescing around the initials BLM. And those who want to make racism the whole story, are hypocritically using violence to make people see things in their own myopic way.
Exactly. And MSM (mainstream media) is a slippery term, too, these days. Many don't see the connection to the other form of MSM: manipulated social media. HBO's Homeland series did a couple of seasons that exposed media manipulation pretty well, I thought. It should also have come as no surprise that when FB/Twitter/etc decide to make a decision about where HK-related news can come from, they can instantly find tens of thousands of "bot" accounts to eliminate.
I think this is good advice, too. China and India have several border disputes, and anything that can come across as anti-China, especially in the UK or USA, will quickly make a mountain out of a molehill. Then again, a nuclear power can also make just the opposite happen. (BTW, India claims to own  a big part of Tibet, too.) I think India's new fascist leaning government will likely begin to push these issues in several additional ways. (FWIW, FB just loves Modi.)
You make a lot of obscure references, and I suppose I do, too. (Otherwise, posts would be even longer.) But I had to look up both of these ideas. It's a shame, even to many LGB persons in the LGBTQ++++++++ communities, that they see themselves as devalued and even debased by such young participants in their "movements." (And diluted by the extra ++++'s as every new letter wants to join the "expression.") It's a different story in their cases, but to many it's also another case of people thinking they are crying out for justice, and then subverted and sabotaged by SJW and other factions of identity politics.

Daniel 29:30 says a kingdom will rule OVER the earth: But after you another kingdom will rise,  inferior to you; then another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.
As @Outta Here already explained,  you can rule on or over and it doesn't make much difference in the context under discussion. However, grammatically I would prefer to rule over @4Jah2me if I become Queen of England,  not on him.
In any case, it is quite clear Revelation 5:10 is talking about pesons in heaven. If we were to apply it to an earthly scene, Jehovah would literally have to  be seated on a throne ON earth in order for Jesus,  "the lamb who was slaughtered" to be seated next to him ON earth. We know Jesus went to heaven and sat at the right hand of God in heaven. We also know that Jesus promised his followers in the 1st century that they would be seated next to him. We know there is a heavenly hope. So for clarities sake it is more accurate to say they will be ruling over the earth rather than on it. Evidently, saying on the earth is confusing, as made evident by the need to make this a topic for discussion in the first place.

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.

CNN is about reliable as a 2 year old teaching rocket science.

As I said, I see no problem with you or anyone else (even me!) bringing it up, and I never complained. But the complaint from others was that no matter what the topic, JB would turn it to CSA so often, you came to expect it. If it was a discussion of Trinity, JB would turn it to CSA. If the topic was about 1914, JB would turn it to CSA. etc.
It's as if JB had a goal to bring it up everywhere, but he used the methods of an Internet troll to bring it up in anyone else's topic, but he rarely ever started a topic on CSA his own.

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs. That is why it is so difficult to understand where they are coming from. Their perceptions are alien because they are personal. They assume they must be shared by all, hence the paucity of explanation, and the irrationality of their criticism. And judging from the murky glimpses of those perceptions through the sarcastic and complicated reasonings they present, little wonder they rejected them!

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.

@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....