Traveler

Does the Doctrine of the Trinity define Christianity?

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Jonah said:

I understand that you believe you may become a god (in the future) as shown in Doctrine
and Covenants 132:16-17.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 says "According to that which was ordained in the midst
of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was ...
"

Were you already a god at this Council in the past?

By the definition given us through Jesus Christ and scripture (which cannot be broken) - those to whom the word of G-d is received are g-ds.  So the question is - do you accept the word of G-d?  And if you, in truth do - according to the witness of Christ - are you not to be numbered among "The Children of G-d?"  And if a Child of G-d are you not a g-d?  What does it mean to believe in Christ?  Is not Christ the word?  Has the word of G-d come to you?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2021 at 1:30 AM, Traveler said:

By the definition given us through Jesus Christ and scripture (which cannot be broken) - those to whom the word of G-d is received are g-ds.  So the question is - do you accept the word of G-d?  And if you, in truth do - according to the witness of Christ - are you not to be numbered among "The Children of G-d?"  And if a Child of G-d are you not a g-d?  What does it mean to believe in Christ?  Is not Christ the word?  Has the word of G-d come to you?

 

The Traveler

I believe I'm an adopted son of God by faith, but not a literal procreated child of heavenly parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2021 at 2:28 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Ditto for LDS Christians (except for not using the word "trinity").

What do you think about Joseph's teaching as recorded in History of the Church?

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost
are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and
one in three! It is a curious organization".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jonah said:

I believe I'm an adopted son of God by faith, but not a literal procreated child of heavenly parents.

Who (or what) do you believe are the parents that created you in the first place?  And then left you to be adopted by someone else?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2021 at 12:06 AM, Traveler said:

Who (or what) do you believe are the parents that created you in the first place?  And then left you to be adopted by someone else?

 

The Traveler

Heavenly Father created us.  I don't believe a heavenly mother was involved. The Fall
separated mankind from Him.  By faith, we are adopted back as sons.

There are a few verses in Romans chapter 8 which reveal this adoption:

12 - So, then, brothers, we are under obligation, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh
13 - for if you live according to the flesh, you are sure to die; but if you put the practices of 
body to deaths by the spirit, you will live.
14 - For all who are led by God's spirit are indeed God’s sons.
15 - For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you received a spirit of
adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: "Abba, Father!"

16 - The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children.
17 - If, then, we are children, we are also heirs-heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ
provided we suffer together so that we may also be glorified together.

Only those led by the spirit of God are the children of God (and joint-heirs with Christ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonah said:

Heavenly Father created us.  I don't believe a heavenly mother was involved. The Fall
separated mankind from Him.  By faith, we are adopted back as sons.

There are a few verses in Romans chapter 8 which reveal this adoption:

12 - So, then, brothers, we are under obligation, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh
13 - for if you live according to the flesh, you are sure to die; but if you put the practices of 
body to deaths by the spirit, you will live.
14 - For all who are led by God's spirit are indeed God’s sons.
15 - For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you received a spirit of
adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: "Abba, Father!"

16 - The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children.
17 - If, then, we are children, we are also heirs-heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ
provided we suffer together so that we may also be glorified together.

Only those led by the spirit of God are the children of God (and joint-heirs with Christ).

I am currently expecting a baby this summer.  When that baby is born, whom do you believe is that baby's Father?  Whom created that baby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonah said:

....

Only those led by the spirit of God are the children of God (and joint-heirs with Christ).

The question that started this little discussion (that you asked me and now I ask you) within this thread - do you believe that such ("those led by the spirit of God") are g-ds?

If you can answer this question there is a logical follow up - since you fostered the initial question - perhaps you will see what logically follows concerning the meaning of one g-d?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 12:18 PM, Traveler said:

@Jonahasked me to start a thread on this topic concerning Christianity and the Trinity Doctrine established at Nicene counsel and how that creed was used by Christian institutions impacting their society up until roughly the 16th Century.   Here is the question from the "Was Jesus Married" thread in the LDS Gospel Discussion section:

My main question is not so much concerning the specific doctrine but rather how many Traditional Christians approve the history of its impact on Christian institutions and how those institutions treated any society that rejected the Trinity Creed.  Please be prepared to answer my questions of how this creed was used historically and how Christians today view the historical consequences. 

 

The Traveler

I am a former member of the Worldwide Church of God

and I was against the idea of the Trinity for most of my life......

but now.... I have no problem with the idea of an Ancient of Days the Heavenly Father who may be composed of absolutely fundamental energy that may correspond to the energy of the original "Eleven" dimensional space time continuum.  The Ancient of Days the Holy Spirit may perhaps be composed of somewhat less 'fundamental" tenth dimensional energy and may be able to walk inside of... .The Heavenly Father as shown to, if I remember correctly, the gifted Kat Kerr and the gifted near death experiencer Kevin Zadai..... then... .perhaps Messiah Yeshua - Jesus who has a physical body....... may be able to step inside of both the Ancient of Days the Heavenly Father and / or the Ancient of Days the Holy Spirit.......   which would be one possible fulfillment of Jesus being in the FAther.. .and  the Father in Jesus and the Holy Spirit being in Jesus.. .and Jesus being in the Holy Spirit........ and all of us being inside all three of them once we are resurrected?????????

 

This question is far, far, far, far above my Security Clearance Level with Messiah Yeshua - Jesus but I definitely think that the Trinity Doctrine was used to exaggerate accusations and cause unnecessary division within the Body of Jesus /The Bride of Messiah/ the church.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2021 at 2:02 PM, DennisTate said:

I am a former member of the Worldwide Church of God

and I was against the idea of the Trinity for most of my life......

but now.... I have no problem with the idea of an Ancient of Days the Heavenly Father who may be composed of absolutely fundamental energy that may correspond to the energy of the original "Eleven" dimensional space time continuum.  The Ancient of Days the Holy Spirit may perhaps be composed of somewhat less 'fundamental" tenth dimensional energy and may be able to walk inside of... .The Heavenly Father as shown to, if I remember correctly, the gifted Kat Kerr and the gifted near death experiencer Kevin Zadai..... then... .perhaps Messiah Yeshua - Jesus who has a physical body....... may be able to step inside of both the Ancient of Days the Heavenly Father and / or the Ancient of Days the Holy Spirit.......   which would be one possible fulfillment of Jesus being in the FAther.. .and  the Father in Jesus and the Holy Spirit being in Jesus.. .and Jesus being in the Holy Spirit........ and all of us being inside all three of them once we are resurrected?????????

 

This question is far, far, far, far above my Security Clearance Level with Messiah Yeshua - Jesus but I definitely think that the Trinity Doctrine was used to exaggerate accusations and cause unnecessary division within the Body of Jesus /The Bride of Messiah/ the church.  

Perhaps I can help you - a little.  The concept of eleven dimensional space time comes to theoretical physics through super string theory.  However, the reason that 11 dimensions stand out in string theory is because one of the possible explanations of our universe via the Big Bang theory comes from the mathematical convenience  that the Big Bang was the result of an 11 dimensional space time continuum collapse into our current 3 dimensional space time.  One of the problems with all this is that time cannot be proven to be a mathematical dimension - plus under Einstein's theories that are highly respected - time is not continuous.  

Contrary to the thinking of some that dive into the fantasy side of speculation - the science and mathematics of a superior being must come from higher dimensions to have superior knowledge and power over beings of lessor dimensions.  This simple element of reality dictates that a superior G-d must of necessity have physical dimensions.   In short - a physical dimensional body.  That such a bein also has other (spiritual) dimensions is theatrically possible and indeed a necessity for a superior being.  The point being that from all we know from science - a superior G-d  must have physical dimension to dominate our universe's space time.  Plus the single example of G-d existing in our space time is Jesus Christ or as you implied Messiah Yeshua had both a physical body and resurrected physical body undistinguishable by sight from our own - which we are told in scripture is an exact copy of G-d in plurality. 

Just for fun - one final idea from someone that used to work on projects for the USA government (military) that required a security clearance.  Technically security clearance levels are not so much a matter of the information as it is the need to know.  So to say that something is above your security clearance level is an indication of your individual "NEED" to know.  But there is a caveat to the need to know that is offset by a level of trust.   Jesus spoke in terms of this when he said: "this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."  Which implies that we all have a need to know.  So if it is above our security clearance it can only be because our understanding and opinions cannot be trusted.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps I can help you - a little.  The concept of eleven dimensional space time comes to theoretical physics through super string theory.  However, the reason that 11 dimensions stand out in string theory is because one of the possible explanations of our universe via the Big Bang theory comes from the mathematical convenience  that the Big Bang was the result of an 11 dimensional space time continuum collapse into our current 3 dimensional space time.  One of the problems with all this is that time cannot be proven to be a mathematical dimension - plus under Einstein's theories that are highly respected - time is not continuous.  

Contrary to the thinking of some that dive into the fantasy side of speculation - the science and mathematics of a superior being must come from higher dimensions to have superior knowledge and power over beings of lessor dimensions.  This simple element of reality dictates that a superior G-d must of necessity have physical dimensions.   In short - a physical dimensional body.  That such a bein also has other (spiritual) dimensions is theatrically possible and indeed a necessity for a superior being.  The point being that from all we know from science - a superior G-d  must have physical dimension to dominate our universe's space time.  Plus the single example of G-d existing in our space time is Jesus Christ or as you implied Messiah Yeshua had both a physical body and resurrected physical body undistinguishable by sight from our own - which we are told in scripture is an exact copy of G-d in plurality. 

Just for fun - one final idea from someone that used to work on projects for the USA government (military) that required a security clearance.  Technically security clearance levels are not so much a matter of the information as it is the need to know.  So to say that something is above your security clearance level is an indication of your individual "NEED" to know.  But there is a caveat to the need to know that is offset by a level of trust.   Jesus spoke in terms of this when he said: "this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."  Which implies that we all have a need to know.  So if it is above our security clearance it can only be because our understanding and opinions cannot be trusted.

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler...... YOUR REPLY IS BRILLIANT... .and the best......  reply that I think I have ever gotten since I began to put this idea out there several years ago.  I got into this basic topic with so many Atheists and Agnostics that I wrote a blog to summarize the position that I was in so far:

 

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

May go into my suspicions that we may be living in something like a Multiverse.......

that our Creator formed in order to fulfill all that is implied by Ezekiel chapter thirty seven.....

Revelations chapter twenty

Romans chapters, nine, ten and eleven.............?

 

Or would you  prefer that I copy and paste your message over to this other discussion...and go off in that possible direction from this other thread?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DennisTate said:

 

The Traveler...... YOUR REPLY IS BRILLIANT... .and the best......  reply that I think I have ever gotten since I began to put this idea out there several years ago.  I got into this basic topic with so many Atheists and Agnostics that I wrote a blog to summarize the position that I was in so far:

 

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

May go into my suspicions that we may be living in something like a Multiverse.......

that our Creator formed in order to fulfill all that is implied by Ezekiel chapter thirty seven.....

Revelations chapter twenty

Romans chapters, nine, ten and eleven.............?

 

Or would you  prefer that I copy and paste your message over to this other discussion...and go off in that possible direction from this other thread?

 

 

You may quote me are use my ideas as you like.  But I caution you to be aware that the possibility that our "known" universe is a subset of a universe of more dimensions is very different from the idea of multiverse.  In that multiverse is made up of many universes with the same or similar dimensions of space-time.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You may quote me are use my ideas as you like.  But I caution you to be aware that the possibility that our "known" universe is a subset of a universe of more dimensions is very different from the idea of multiverse.  In that multiverse is made up of many universes with the same or similar dimensions of space-time.

 

The Traveler

Excellent... thank you... I felt it was best to copy and paste your response here, (well actually scroll down to the bottom of page three of replies... ).... :

 

Edited by DennisTate
I messed up the link....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 11:18 AM, Traveler said:

@Jonahasked me to start a thread on this topic concerning Christianity and the Trinity Doctrine established at Nicene counsel and how that creed was used by Christian institutions impacting their society up until roughly the 16th Century.   Here is the question from the "Was Jesus Married" thread in the LDS Gospel Discussion section:

My main question is not so much concerning the specific doctrine but rather how many Traditional Christians approve the history of its impact on Christian institutions and how those institutions treated any society that rejected the Trinity Creed.  Please be prepared to answer my questions of how this creed was used historically and how Christians today view the historical consequences. 

 

The Traveler

the impact of the roman all male version plus its overlay and definition by greek concepts foreign to scripture has been to create more confusion . modern christianity has resulted. a mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Traveler said:

You may quote me are use my ideas as you like.  But I caution you to be aware that the possibility that our "known" universe is a subset of a universe of more dimensions is very different from the idea of multiverse.  In that multiverse is made up of many universes with the same or similar dimensions of space-time.

 

The Traveler

He and His feminine spirit and all His (their) sons and daughters have and partake an entirely different nature than the nature of this universe, which belongs to other (satanic) elohim. 

 

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2021 at 11:01 PM, e v e said:

He and His feminine spirit and all His (their) sons and daughters have and partake an entirely different nature than the nature of this universe, which belongs to other (satanic) elohim. 

 

Upon what are you basing this assumption and why are you so sure your assumptions are not frivolous  speculations?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 2:01 AM, e v e said:

He and His feminine spirit and all His (their) sons and daughters have and partake an entirely different nature than the nature of this universe, which belongs to other (satanic) elohim. 

 

The only issue that I would have with this comment would be how to define the word "Elohim."  This word is used in Genesis chapter one in a way that seems to link the Elohim in whose image Adam and Eve were formed to the Seven Spirits of G-d...... but angels were not all made in the image of God but were often quite different..... for example..... some Cherubim have wings whereas Adam and Eve did not.  

Edited by DennisTate
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DennisTate said:

The only issue that I would have with this comment would be how to define the word "Elohim."  This word is used in Genesis chapter one in a way that seems to link the Elohim in whose image Adam and Eve were formed to the Seven Spirits of G-d...... but angels were not all made in the image of God but were often quite different..... for example..... some Cherubim have wings whereas Adam and Eve did not.  

I wonder what is meant by a Cherub - which is the singular of Cherubim.  One can only speculate why there is not a translation of Cherub from the ancient Greek for our English versions of the Biblical scripters - perhaps because there is none????  The ancient Greek term of Cherub was more closely associated with a type of g-d than a kind of angel.   From my own studies - there are no symbolic powers or assignments given to the Biblical Cherub's of the Old Testament that do not correspond to that of Christ.  In the first example in Genesis the Cherub was assigned as the "Keeper" of the way to the tree of eternal life - and Jesus said he was the "Way" to eternal life.  We also learn that a Cherub is "Anointed" which is the meaning of the ancient Hebrew term, Messiah.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2021 at 11:05 AM, Traveler said:

Upon what are you basing this assumption and why are you so sure your assumptions are not frivolous  speculations?

 

The Traveler

in His Scripture , translated properly, even from Genesis 1 is the same I wrote....

 

remember modern translations, kjv, are sorcery.

 

instead, go translate for your self...

where, in hebrew,  always the references to His Spirit are feminine.

 

the prophets and the OT give the basis for the NT. thus the NT must conform and it does,

except for where esau stepped in with his additions...

 

the neuter grammar of "translations'  is a corruption...

The only signature-less neuter constructs being of the satanic beings and his esau types.

God has a most gorgeous signature and does not speak random or contradict his own words...

 

(compare the nature of this world - the fallen situation) ...random causality...signatureless nature...

 

His Eden, to which He wants His 144k sons to return is the main topic in His prophets,

and not based on this material causality of the fallen situation (this world)...

 

He wants His sons to listen and inquire back to prophets...

to find the proper context...

 

Edited by e v e
clarify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Traveler said:

I wonder what is meant by a Cherub - which is the singular of Cherubim.  One can only speculate why there is not a translation of Cherub from the ancient Greek for our English versions of the Biblical scripters - perhaps because there is none????  The ancient Greek term of Cherub was more closely associated with a type of g-d than a kind of angel.   From my own studies - there are no symbolic powers or assignments given to the Biblical Cherub's of the Old Testament that do not correspond to that of Christ.  In the first example in Genesis the Cherub was assigned as the "Keeper" of the way to the tree of eternal life - and Jesus said he was the "Way" to eternal life.  We also learn that a Cherub is "Anointed" which is the meaning of the ancient Hebrew term, Messiah.

 

The Traveler

this is from het Report, written by the researcher i make the site with, who was given the job by Him...
perhaps the site gives some explanation...

not only just this page.

https://het-report.nl/pt-609/

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2021 at 11:06 AM, DennisTate said:

The only issue that I would have with this comment would be how to define the word "Elohim."  This word is used in Genesis chapter one in a way that seems to link the Elohim in whose image Adam and Eve were formed to the Seven Spirits of G-d...... but angels were not all made in the image of God but were often quite different..... for example..... some Cherubim have wings whereas Adam and Eve did not.  

Adam is a deity and a son of Him. Adam fell and went to work for the enemy...for the satanic beings... the fallen angels/deities...

and created this current earth and bodies , in disobedience to Him

 

The seven spirits are the seven feminine torches belonging with His Spirit...

Many of His originals were captured and went north with Adam..

I am speaking of the other world, not of this one.

 

By wings there are other complicated themes meant..

so i won't go into it here...

 

the 144k attributes of Him lost and went with Adam

are being restored to Him...

 

adam will die soon .

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2021 at 5:34 PM, Traveler said:

I wonder what is meant by a Cherub - which is the singular of Cherubim.  One can only speculate why there is not a translation of Cherub from the ancient Greek for our English versions of the Biblical scripters - perhaps because there is none????  The ancient Greek term of Cherub was more closely associated with a type of g-d than a kind of angel.   From my own studies - there are no symbolic powers or assignments given to the Biblical Cherub's of the Old Testament that do not correspond to that of Christ.  In the first example in Genesis the Cherub was assigned as the "Keeper" of the way to the tree of eternal life - and Jesus said he was the "Way" to eternal life.  We also learn that a Cherub is "Anointed" which is the meaning of the ancient Hebrew term, Messiah.

 

The Traveler

All that I know is that apparently some Cherubs can look like a horse ...... apparently a horse with wings.......????  I base this on the word Cherub in the Psalms combined with a statement in the Book of Revelations.

 

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

 

And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.
Edited by DennisTate
add scriptures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 12:37 PM, e v e said:

in His Scripture , translated properly, even from Genesis 1 is the same I wrote....

 

remember modern translations, kjv, are sorcery.

 

instead, go translate for your self...

where, in hebrew,  always the references to His Spirit are feminine.

 

the prophets and the OT give the basis for the NT. thus the NT must conform and it does,

except for where esau stepped in with his additions...

 

the neuter grammar of "translations'  is a corruption...

The only signature-less neuter constructs being of the satanic beings and his esau types.

God has a most gorgeous signature and does not speak random or contradict his own words...

 

(compare the nature of this world - the fallen situation) ...random causality...signatureless nature...

 

His Eden, to which He wants His 144k sons to return is the main topic in His prophets,

and not based on this material causality of the fallen situation (this world)...

 

He wants His sons to listen and inquire back to prophets...

to find the proper context...

 

Thank you for your response – but I must admit I am a little befuddled.

All attempts at creating a “Bible” have resulted in versions there are not actual translation.  This is because there is no Bible today that is a translation of any specific manuscript.  The translations are in essence cherry picked among thousands of manuscripts.   Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the Masoretic families of ancient text were the most reliable and accurate.  Keep in mind that there are thousands of ancient manuscripts which are broken down into almost 100 families – the Masoretic being just one of those families.

The King James Version of the Bible was first published in the early 1600’s which is by all standards pre and not postmodern era.  With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures it was determined that the Masoretic base of scripture is quite corrupt.  Keep in mind that the Dead Sea Scriptures pushed back history by hundreds of years getting us closer to the original manuscripts.  The only published Bible today, that I am aware of, that has not updated specific to what was discovered from the Dead Sea Scriptures is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation – Which BTW is not a true translation but another version based on many ancient documents within a manuscript family.

But here is a little note about the early printings of the King James Version of the Bible.  There were many scholars (I do not remember the exact number) that worked on the King James Version.  When all the scholars could not agree on a specific translation they left the word or phrase to be printed in italics.   What was printed was the most accepted but since it was printed in italics it was left as an exercise to the reader to research the variant readings. Of the many versions that I maintain in my personal library – because of this little factor alone - I personally  find the KJV the English Biblical best source.

It is interesting to me that your references to the feminine language reference to G-d’s Spirit – since the direct references to G-d are all masculine and outnumber the feminine references more than 10 to 1.  But I am also concerned that you are so instructed by the Pyramid Text which forms one of the earliest collections of Pagan documents on record.   Since the early Pagans were obsessed with female g-ds (such as Isis and others) and their relationship to fertility – I am surprised that you are more concerned with any version of any of the Christian Bible than possible corruption from such Pagan texts.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2021 at 9:46 PM, Traveler said:

Thank you for your response – but I must admit I am a little befuddled.

All attempts at creating a “Bible” have resulted in versions there are not actual translation.  This is because there is no Bible today that is a translation of any specific manuscript.  The translations are in essence cherry picked among thousands of manuscripts.   Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the Masoretic families of ancient text were the most reliable and accurate.  Keep in mind that there are thousands of ancient manuscripts which are broken down into almost 100 families – the Masoretic being just one of those families.

The King James Version of the Bible was first published in the early 1600’s which is by all standards pre and not postmodern era.  With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures it was determined that the Masoretic base of scripture is quite corrupt.  Keep in mind that the Dead Sea Scriptures pushed back history by hundreds of years getting us closer to the original manuscripts.  The only published Bible today, that I am aware of, that has not updated specific to what was discovered from the Dead Sea Scriptures is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation – Which BTW is not a true translation but another version based on many ancient documents within a manuscript family.

But here is a little note about the early printings of the King James Version of the Bible.  There were many scholars (I do not remember the exact number) that worked on the King James Version.  When all the scholars could not agree on a specific translation they left the word or phrase to be printed in italics.   What was printed was the most accepted but since it was printed in italics it was left as an exercise to the reader to research the variant readings. Of the many versions that I maintain in my personal library – because of this little factor alone - I personally  find the KJV the English Biblical best source.

It is interesting to me that your references to the feminine language reference to G-d’s Spirit – since the direct references to G-d are all masculine and outnumber the feminine references more than 10 to 1.  But I am also concerned that you are so instructed by the Pyramid Text which forms one of the earliest collections of Pagan documents on record.   Since the early Pagans were obsessed with female g-ds (such as Isis and others) and their relationship to fertility – I am surprised that you are more concerned with any version of any of the Christian Bible than possible corruption from such Pagan texts.

 

The Traveler

In Hebrew the word for Spirit (רוח) (ruach) is feminine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His image is male and female and is the birthright of His 144k eden souls (npsh) … His sons and daughters…. to be restored to Eden soon. 

 

the all male trinity is the pagan one. 

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, e v e said:

In Hebrew the word for Spirit (רוח) (ruach) is feminine

Yeah, and in Hebrew the word for stone ('even) is feminine too.   Does that mean rocks are female, or just rocks in Israel? :)   And in Greek, Spirit is neuter, and in Latin it's masculine.  And,  ruach is masculine in Numbers 11:31 and Isaiah 57:16.

Gendered words are hardly uncommon, and just because you have a gendered noun in another language, doesn't mean that word refers to something that is male or female. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now