Forex 1 minute incredible scalper sistemático teologia

Pc Study Bible Version 5 Professional Reference Library Para quem exige ferramentas mais detalhadas para pregar e ensinar com ênfase na pesquisa de linguagem original. A Biblioteca de Referência Profissional é um recurso de linguagem exegetical e original avançado, projetado para pastores, educadores e estudiosos da Bíblia. Esta Biblioteca da Bíblia de estudo PC inclui a maior coleção de Bíblias da Biblesofts e obras de referência de prestígio entre os mais respeitados autores e editores da indústria. A Biblioteca de Referência Profissional inclui 42 estudos de palavras e recursos grego-hebraicos - 31 são novos e nunca foram oferecidos pela Biblesoft. Um total de 482 Bíblias e volumes de referência. O valor total da biblioteca é mais de 6000 Compare o conteúdo da Biblioteca de Referência Profissional com qualquer produto com preços similares. Você encontrará mais das Bíblias de alto valor e títulos de referência que você está procurando. Alguns dos pontos de destaque incluem: Bíblias de touro: a NIV, a versão da NIV e NIV Readers, a NET Bible w, a versão de versão inglesa, e mais 28. Taurus Comentários: Barnhouses Romanos 4 volumes, Comentário do Conhecimento Bíblico, OT NT, Calvins Comentários 22 volumes, IVP Bíblia Antecedentes Comentários Antigos e Novos Testamentos, o ilustrador bíblico 56 volumes, The Pulpit Commentary 22 volumes, The Teachers Commentary, Spurgeons Treasury of David 3 Volume, Wiersbes Bible Exposition Commentary, OT NT 4 volumes, Wiersbes Exposição bíblica Esboços, OT NT 2 volumes bull Dicionários e enciclopédias: Dicionário do cristianismo na América, dicionário de termos teológicos latino e gregos, Nova Enciclopédia da Bíblia Padrão Internacional, 4 volumes. Bromiley ed. Manual de Bíblia de Willmingtons Touro Recursos Gregos e Hebraicos: Um Comentário Textual sobre o Novo Testamento grego, Bruce Metzger, Pronúncia de Áudio de Erasmian e formas Lexicas Gregas Modernas, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), Suporte completo de Ralphs Septuaginta (LXX) inclui exibição de passagens alternativas, O banco de dados de morfologia KraftTaylorWheeler Septuaginta com notas de sintaxe e Léxico Lusts LXX, base de dados morfológicos GRAMcord NT, notas de sintaxe gregas, dicionário teológico Kittels do Novo Testamento 10 volumes e Little Kittel (TDNT) 1 volume, Aprendendo o básico do NT Greek, mais Workbook Hadjiantoniou, cinco textos adicionais do Novo Testamento grego, incluindo: o Texto de Stephanus 1550, o Texto de Wescott-Hort 1881, o Tischendorf, o 8º EdiçãoTexto, o Texto Scrivener 1894 e o Texto Robinson-Pierpont-Byzantine. A Pastoral ajuda: 52 Sermões do Novo Testamento Iniciadores 4 volumes, Um Tesouro das Ilustrações da Bíblia, Guia Completo de Discussão da Bíblia, Antigos e Novos Testamentos, Ilustrações da Bíblia Heartwarming, Ilustrações das Verdades da Bíblia, Ilustrações Práticas da Bíblia de Ontem e Hoje, Coleção de Pregação de Loscalzo, 3 Volumes, Spurgeons Enciclopédia de Sermões 8 volumes, Willmingtons Outline Bible Esta é apenas uma amostragem do incrível conteúdo incluído na Professional Reference Library. Para ver tudo incluído, role para baixo até o quadro de comparação abaixo. Eu uso minha cópia da PC Study Bible praticamente todos os dias úteis do meu estudo. Eu usei Logos e BibleWorks no passado, mas agora o único que estou usando é PC Study Bible. Eu acho o mais útil, e certamente o mais amigável. É um prazer e uma bênção usar o programa. Obrigado. R. Larry Overstreet Professor Emeritus Northwest Baptist Seminary Tacoma, WA Ei, eu adoro o novo software, muito fácil de usar. Eu tive Biblesoft há anos e nunca me decepcionou. Adoro os complementos gregos e espero que você adicione mais a um excelente software. Muito obrigado Nathaniel H. Duncanville, Texas, usei a PC Study Bible por muitos anos - Versões 2, 3 e 4 - e acabei de atualizar para a Versão 5. É absolutamente o melhor em qualquer tipo de programa de estudo da Bíblia. Muito obrigado por me permitir o privilégio de usar o PC Study Bible. Muito legal e legal e você não precisa olhar por 10-15 minutos para encontrar o que deseja. Bom trabalho, obrigado. Testei outros programas da Bíblia e achei que PC Study Bible é o programa mais direto e útil que já vi. Eu não posso dizer o suficiente sobre isso. Eu usei esse sistema por vários anos, agora que comprei a Versão 5 Professional. Eu quase sinto que é o único programa que eu preciso. É ótimo. Eu acho que levará bastante tempo para passar por todo esse material. Acabei de carregar minha atualização hoje à noite e terminei uma aula na minha aula Kay Arthur Precepts - e estou tão impressionado com as novas funcionalidades desta versão que ainda não comecei a encontrar todas as conveniências incorporadas nesta nova atualização, mas estou seguramente Ansioso por isso. É uma alegria e uma bênção usar este programa para o meu estudo bíblico. Obrigado por todo o trabalho que este programa representa. Eu só quero louvar o Senhor por Biblesoft. Muito obrigado pela versão 5. É incrível. Sendo um ministro pentecostal, acabei de pedir a Biblioteca Pentecostal. Muito obrigado por ter este add-onGod te abençoe e muito obrigado. Apenas um agradecimento pelo formato da Versão 5. Eu realmente não gostei do 4.2 e quase fui para outro programa. Eu tirei uma chance com a Versão 5 e EU AMO-O - MANTENHA O BOM TRABALHO. Ron S. Atualmente morando na Inglaterra Apenas uma palavra para louvar seus esforços na nova versão 5. É uma melhoria tremenda em relação às versões anteriores, especialmente no que diz respeito ao uso da linguagem. Eu tenho outros três programas de bíblia que eu uso, o seu é cabeça e ombros acima dos outros. Obrigado. Obrigado. Obrigado eu adoro Biblesoft, e não posso imaginar fazer o trabalho do meu computador como professor de seminário e pastor sem ele. Recentemente, encontrei meus primeiros disquetes da Biblsoft 5-14, limpando uma sala de armazenamento. A caixa estava datada de 1988 - acho que estamos trabalhando juntos há muito tempo. Eu recentemente atualizei para a versão 4.2B da Biblioteca de Referência Avançada e achei isso maravilhoso (minha sexta atualização principal, acho). Por dezesseis anos, tenho cantado seus lábios para paroquianos e estudantes. Obrigado por produzir e melhorar PC Study Bible. Seu trabalho faz meu trabalho para Gods Kingdom muito, muito mais fácil. Eu só quero oferecer um atraso obrigado. Que Deus continue ricamente abençoando você Dr. Brad Strait Pastor sênior, Igreja do Sul da Sociedade, Professor Adjunto de Liderança, Seminário de Denver, Capelão da Casa, Câmara dos Representantes do Colorado. Tenho usado o PC Study Bible desde a versão 2 para preparar o meu Domingo Adulto Aulas de aulas escolares. Antes de PC Study Bible. Eu tinha uma pilha de livros com 3 pés de altura. Demorou mais tempo procurando coisas do que realmente preparou a lição. Com a Bíblia de estudo PC, eu gasto menos tempo na mecânica e mais tempo no conteúdo. Eu escuto estudos bíblicos em fita da minha igreja na América e o PCSB tem sido um ótimo aprimoramento Com apenas um clique do mouse que eu tenho, não só Bíblias e comentários e mapas, mas também o hebraico, que foi maravilhoso para procurar palavras de volta Para a sua raiz, e tão simplesmente feito, eu nem tenho que pausar a fita. E com a nova opção SAVE, ela continua ficando melhor. PC Study Bible é fácil de dominar, ainda que suficientemente profundo para apresentar material acadêmico. Estou muito satisfeito com este programa e posso realmente dizer que este é o melhor investimento em software que já fiz. Não consigo imaginar nenhum estudante da Bíblia, professor ou pregador que seja sem PC Study Bible. É fácil de usar, completo e uma ajuda maravilhosa para o estudo pessoal ou ajudar a ensinar outros. Com PC Study Bible. Com o clique de um mouse, posso comparar muitas traduções diferentes, ver o hebraico ou o grego original como foi escrito, puxar a definição para qualquer palavra que eu possa achar atraente e ver todas as maneiras diferentes que foram traduzidas no Bíblia. Tudo ao mesmo tempo. Assim como você disse que eu seria capaz de fazer e toda essa capacidade está na ponta dos dedos para que eu possa completar meu estudo em uma fração do tempo que costumava me levar a olhar as coisas manualmente. PC Study Bible provou ser inestimável na pesquisa e facilidade de uso. Dos programas de pesquisa e estudo da Bíblia que usei, PC Study Bible é o que eu prefiro acima de todos os outros. Veja o Conteúdo desta Versão no Gráfico de Comparação abaixo Na Biblesoft, comprometeram-se a fornecer-lhe o melhor material de referência baseado na Bíblia, com base no tempo, e é exatamente o que você encontrará em cada uma das nossas bibliotecas da Bíblia de Estudos de PC. Navegue através do gráfico abaixo para encontrar a biblioteca da Bíblia de estudo do PC que se adapta às suas necessidades específicas. Navegação postal Abaixo está um trecho de uma longa replicação exegética em que trabalhou (lentamente) em resposta às afirmações de Edward Dalcour para as crenças pentecostais do Oneness. Claro, repetidamente desafiei Dalcour para um debate público formal onde seus ataques podem ser examinados abertamente no formato da plataforma polêmica. Depois de aceitar inicialmente o meu convite de debate (quase 8 meses atrás agora), Dalcour subsequentemente se recusou a seguir em comprometer-se com tais acordos 8211, enquanto concordava em conhecer outros defensores do Oneness. A oferta de debate individual com o Sr. Dalcour é um desafio aberto e permanente. Enquanto isso, abaixo, copiei do site da Dalcour8217 e ofereci refutações categóricas imediatamente após suas afirmações em relação ao prólogo de Hebreus. As acusações de Dalcour8217 aparecem no preto 8211 com minhas negações textuais abaixo em azul (como aqui). Em alguns casos, encorajei certos pontos para fins de destaque. Corroboração das reivindicações Dalcour8217s pode ser localizada AQUI. Aproveite (Dalcour): Hebreus 1: 2, 10: Nos últimos dias, Deus Pai nos falou em Seu Filho, a quem Ele designou herdeiro de todas as coisas, por meio de quem também fez o mundo8230. E VOCÊ, SENHOR, NO INICIAR ENCONTRARAM A FUNDAÇÃO DA TERRA, E OS CÉUS SÃO OS TRABALHOS DAS SUAS MÃOS. O prólogo de Hebreus aniquila a posição da Unidade em relação à sua rejeição da preexistência da Pessoa do Filho. Na verdade, o oposto polar é verdadeiro, como devemos demonstrar abaixo. Estou sempre perplexo quando os Trinitários apelam para esses textos poderosos. Eu realmente emprego as mesmas passagens no ensino sobre os erros do Trinitarianismo. O prólogo de Hebreus aniquila a hipótese trinitária de que o Filho de Deus é uma pessoa preexistente, co-eterna e divina. Não surpreendentemente, Dalcour omite a evidência textual em sua citação parcial acima que milita contra sua eisegese (apresentada como 8220exegesis8221, é claro). (Dalcour): neste prólogo, a divindade completa e a unipersonalidade do Filho é expressa de forma convincente (especialmente v. 3, 8). Relativo à preexistência e criatividade do Filho, versículos 2 e 10 mais do que comunicar adequadamente ambas as verdades. Tal como acontece com João 1: 3 e Colossenses 1: 16-17 (e 1 Cor. 8: 6), o versículo 2 afirma que o Filho era o Criador. Primeiro, nem Hebreus 1.2 nem v. 10 afirmam uma coisa sobre a preexistência e a criatividade do Filho. Conforme demonstramos a seguir, tal construção é fornecida exclusivamente por outro trinitário excessivo que busca validar sua teologia predisposta, não pela exegese real do (s) texto (s) em si (e certamente não mais do que adequadamente). Nós já expormos o manuscrito defeituoso de Dalcours sobre o texto grego acima relativo a Colossenses 1.16, João 1.3, etc. e volta a ele novamente com o prólogo de Hebreus (Dalcour): Nesta passagem, encontramos novamente a preposição dia. Seguido pelo genitivo: Nos últimos dias nos falou em Seu Filho. A quem ele designou herdeiro de todas as coisas, por meio de quem você também fez o mundo (ênfase adicionada). Observe que este texto especifica que Deus falou com a Sua criação nos últimos dias, indicando que Ele não falou em Seu Filho (dativo) antes dessa mesma era do tempo. Seria incrível imaginar que Deus nunca falou em Seu Filho coeternal desde toda a eternidade Especialmente porque Dalcour argumenta em outro lugar que as referências de OT ao Anjo do Senhor são realmente o Filho de Deus falando (embora o prólogo de Hebreus refute diretamente essa noção cf 1.5-6). (Dalcour): Contextually. A linha central de evidência que o autor apresenta, que prontamente afirma a criatividade dos Filhos, é o contraste bem definido entre as coisas criadas (a saber, os anjos, os céus e a terra) e a eternidade do Filho divino (ver v. 2 -3, 8-10). Nos versículos 10-12, o autor (citando o Pai) aplica o Salmo 102: 25-27 (101: 25-27 no LXX) ao Filho. Contextualmente, o Filho de Deus neste prólogo é apresentado como: (Vs. 1) Falando apenas nos últimos dias. Isto é, obviamente, linguagem que, se permitido falar por si mesmo, dificilmente leva o leitor honesto a uma preexistência co-eterna. Dalcour está sugerindo que Deus o Filho era completamente mudo de toda a eternidade (o que ele não pode fazer desde que ele sugere que o Anjo do O Senhor no AT era realmente Cristo, é claro, sem suporte textual) (vs. 2) Nomeado herdeiro de todas as coisas. Não seria um Deus co-eterno, o Filho, já ser o herdeiro de todas as coisas. Que é, que sentido faria para o escritor de Hebreus afirmar que um Deus pré-existente, o Filho, foi nomeado (note o aorista indicativo) como herdeiro de todos Coisas E, que pessoa divina fez a nomeação, pode a primeira ou a terceira pessoa divina na Trindade designar a suposta segunda pessoa divina na Trindade na eternidade-passado. Tal construção é esp. Problemática para os trinitários, uma vez que eles ensinam que Cristo se ofereceu no céu para se encarnar com base em um mal entendido de Filipenses 2.5-8 (ou seja, o Carmen Christi). É claro que tal construção teológica exige, naturalmente, processos de pensamento independentes por cada pessoa divina dentro da Divindade, a própria definição de politeísmo (que teria sido rejeitada de mãos livres pelos crentes hebraicos embebidos em conceitos OT). (Vs. 3) A marca exacta da sua natureza (isto é, os pais). Desde quando uma impressão () carrega naturalmente o mesmo tempo-continuum como o original do qual a impressão deriva Tal construção é uma perversão grosseira do significado literal desse substantivo grego na tentativa de forçar a teologia predisposta nos dados bíblicos . Os apologistas trinitários geralmente afirmam que o substantivo grego significa natureza neste texto. No entanto, com relação a este substantivo particular, o NIDNTTE altamente exaustivo (um trabalho determinante na lexicografia exegética) afirma: Além disso, nos dizem que o Filho é, o resplendor da glória de deus e a representação exata de seu ser (1: 3a veja G878 G1518 ). A mesma idéia é expressa com linguagem diferente quando Paulo descreve Cristo como, a imagem de Deus (2 Cor 4: 4 Col 1:15 ver G1635), e quando o próprio Jesus diz: Quem me viu viu o Pai (João 14 : 9). O contexto de Heb. 1 deixa claro que o propósito dos escritores era enfatizar a glória do Filho e a singularidade de sua revelação. O Filho que controla o início e o fim está em uma relação única (a) com Deus, cuja refulgência e imagem é (b) para o universo, que ele sustenta e (c) para a igreja, que ele purificou dos pecados . F. F. Bruce escreve: Assim como a imagem e a inscrição em uma moeda correspondem exatamente ao dispositivo no dado, o Filho de Deus tem o próprio selo de sua natureza (RSV). A palavra grega charaktr, que ocorre apenas aqui no Novo Testamento, expressa essa verdade ainda mais de forma enfática do que o Eikn. Assim como a glória está realmente na refulgência, então a substância (Gd. Hipóstasis) de Deus é realmente em Cristo, que é a sua impressão, é a sua representação e encarnação exatas. O que Deus é essencialmente, é manifestado em Cristo. Ver Cristo é ver como é o Pai (Comentário sobre a Epístola aos Hebreus 1964, 6). BDAG: 2 someth. Produzido como representação, reprodução, representação, fig. De Deus (Deus) formou um ser humano como reprodução de sua própria realidade de identidade (s. 2) 1 Cl 33: 4 (cp OGI 383, 60 de uma imagem. 404, 25 Philo, Det. Pot. Ins. 83 chama a Alma). Cristo é. Uma representação exata de (deuses) real sendo Hb 1: 3 (1a). Léxico analítico de Fribergs no NT grego:,,. Originalmente gravador ou ferramenta de gravura usada figurativamente no NT de Cristo em relação a Deus representação exata, reprodução precisa, impressionar (HE 1.3). Léxico grego-inglês Louw-Nidas com base no domínio semântico: 58,62 m: uma representação como uma reprodução exata de uma forma ou estrutura específica 8211 representação exata. Que é o reflexo de sua glória e a representação exata de seu ser HEB. 1: 3. Mais uma vez, buscar uma transferência ilegítima do mesmo continuum de tempo-idade para a reprodução ou carimbo como o original que inicialmente causou a impressão aborta todas as normas linguísticas em uma tentativa desesperada de proteger uma tradição religiosa (mascarada como exegese, é claro). As pessoas divinas na Trindade são tão radicalmente separadas que podem ser distinguidas através da encarnação (ver Bruce acima) Se assim for, o que de repente aconteceu com sua igualdade ontológica (vs. 3d) (O Filho de Deus) sentou-se à direita Mão de Deus somente quando ele realizou a purificação dos pecados, indicando que o Filho de Deus não estava em posição de poder (ou seja, a mão direita da língua judaica) desde a eternidade. Era um Deus co-eterno, o Filho, não na posição de autoridade e poder no Céu de todos os dias da eternidade (Vs. 4) Ele (o Filho de Deus) se tornou e herdou um nome melhor do que os anjos Se, como trinitarianos Demanda nesses textos, Deus o Filho está sendo apresentado como co-eterno por que esse texto declara explicitamente que o Filho de Deus se tornou (literalmente, tornando-se uma tag participativa aorista) melhor do que os anjos. O Deus, o Filho, já foi melhor do que os anjos de Toda a eternidade Da mesma forma, se o Filho herdou ou obteve um nome superior aos anjos, como seria este quadrado com a noção trinitária de que o Filho foi o Seu nome de toda a eternidade (especialmente porque os Trinitários nos informam que o Filho é o nome Sendo descrito em Mateus 28.19) Uma pessoa co-igual, co-eterna, divina, não poderia herdar um nome que Ele já possuía de toda a eternidade (Vs. 5). O Filho é dito ser gerado (indicativo ativo perfeito) em um particular Dia e eu iremos (futuro indicativo ) Seu pai e ele (o futuro verbo indicativo) seja meu filho (profecias messiânicas do Salmo 2.7 2 Samuel 7.14). Você pode imaginar a aparência dos meus filhos se eu dissesse a ele que algum dia eu serei seu pai? Isso, até mesmo, soa como as regras normais da linguística neste ponto (ironicamente, esse é o mesmo veículo para o qual o Dalcour apela, ou seja, linguística normativa) Ou seja, quem, permitindo que tal linguagem suporte sua própria força, naturalmente, concluiria que esses textos apresentam o Filho de Deus como possessivo da mesma eternidade que aquele que está fazendo o pai. Ninguém que permite que os dados inspirados falem Em si, mesmo piora para os trinitários neste prólogo (vs. 6) Os anjos de Deus são comandados a adorar o Filho quando o Pai traz seu primogênito para o mundo. Esta é apenas outra demolição textual do Deus eterno e suposto eisgez do filho. Claramente, os anjos não adoravam o Filho de toda a eternidade ou então não teriam sido comandados a fazer o que eles já estavam fazendo, teria sido uma transição perfeita. Não trará nada aos trinitarianos para apelar a João 12.41 em conexão com Isaías 6 Argumentar que os anjos estavam adorando o Filho no AT, uma vez que Hebreus 1.6 refuta diretamente essa noção para não mencionar como tal interpretação ensinaria separação corporal dentro da Divindade (algo que Dalcour argumenta involuntariamente). Isaías viu uma visão de Yahveh, a quem João descreve como Jesus. Como João apresenta a Jesus como completamente Deus em seu evangelho (ver 1.1, 14.20.28), não apresenta nenhum problema para ele tomar as palavras originalmente faladas pelo próprio Isaías de Yahveh e aplicá-las a Jesus. Na verdade, Paulo atribuiu as palavras de Isaías ao Espírito Santo (Atos 28.25). Os trinitários agora exigirão que Isaías também visse o Espírito Santo no AT. De acordo com o testemunho macro do corpus de Isaías, na medida em que o profeta viu Jesus denota prolepsia profética do Messias vindouro, quem seria o próprio Yahveh de O OT. Esta é precisamente a posição Oneness (Vs. 8). O Filho é chamado de Deus que tem um trono. Como Dalcour nos informa que este é Deus, o Pai dirigindo diretamente a Deus o Filho (a saber, o caso vocativo) em distinção de Si mesmo de toda a eternidade (abaixo de Dalcour diz, o Pai está falando com o Filho diferenciando-se do Filho especialmente em Luz da v. 8-9), devemos esperar ver múltiplos tronos nas representações bíblicas do Céu. Não só não vemos essas imagens apresentadas no céu. João viu um trono no céu, com uma pessoa sentada nela, que identificou explicitamente como Deus e Seu Filho (Apocalipse 3.20-21, 4.2.2.3-4). De fato, Jesus é explicitamente adorado como o Um Deus dos Céus em Apocalipse (1.8.20.20.21). Pense em manter as verdadeiras testemunhas oculares inspiradas e deixar as formulações trinitárias mais tarde para suas próprias especulações de olhos curiosos. Além disso, se Deus se dirige diretamente a Deus (o Filho), então Dalcour necessariamente defende uma separação tão pronunciada dentro da Divindade que cada pessoa divina é possessiva de centros divinos de cognição, faculdades mentais ou mentes que podem abordar uns aos outros de forma idêntica à dos seres humanos . Pergunto ao leitor honesto e sincero: essas imagens denotam um deus em qualquer sentido prático ou lógico da frase. Quais são as divindades que essas imagens iluminam naturalmente em sua mente, uma ou duas (Vs. 9). O Filho é dito Ter amado a justiça e odiar a ilegalidade. Então Deus, seu Deus, o ungiu sobre seus companheiros com o óleo da alegria. Quando o Filho de Deus ama a justiça, aborrece a lei, tenha seu Deus ungido, e tenha companheiros. Quando tudo isso aconteceu. Na eternidade pré-existente ou durante a Encarnação, Deus o Filho precisa de ungir por Deus Pai Na eternidade sobre os seus companheiros. Ele nunca foi ungido como deus. Isso é, uma pessoa divina co-igual, co-eterna, literalmente, unge outro Deus-pessoa na eternidade. Se assim for, como afirmado acima, como podem os trinitários como Dalcour Falar de co-igualdade ontológica O contexto e a gramática inspirada nestes textos militam abertamente e rigorosamente contra as interpolações de olhos selvagens de Dalcours. Embora não seja surpreendente neste ponto, é incômodo como Dalcour pode apelar para o contexto do prólogo hebraico quando esta é a própria coisa que refuta as suas imposições do filho co-eterno sobre o texto (Dalcour): isso é tão importante porque (um ) O Salmo é uma referência a Javé e (b) o Pai está falando com o Filho diferenciando-se do Filho (especialmente a luz do verso 8-9). Veja que isso simplesmente prova demais para Dalcour e quanto mais ele for forçado a mascar seu dilema, maior ele cresce (Dalcour): o referente ao pronome su, Você no início do versículo 10 (kai su) está de volta ao versículo 8 : Pros de ton huion, mas do Filho Ele, o Pai, diz. Irrefutavelmente, é Deus o Pai dirigindo-se diretamente ao Filho. No versículo 8, é usado o nominativo para o vocativo do endereço 6, enquanto que no versículo 10, o vocativo real de kurios (kurie) é usado, o que fortalece ainda mais o argumento dos autores: VOCE, SENHOR KURIE, NO INÍCIO ENCONTROU A FUNDAÇÃO DA TERRA, E OS CÉUS SÃO OS TRABALHOS DE SUAS MÃOS. Em primeiro lugar, estamos bastante perplexos com o que Dalcour pensa que o caso vocativo exige neste texto. O vocativo é o caso do endereço direto, mas os textos citados como direcionando ao Filho de Deus aqui são, respectivamente, o LXX do Salmo 45.6 (v. 8) E Salmo 102.25-27 (v. 10). Mais importante ainda, ele diz em Hebreus 1.8 está em itálico, indicando uma conjectura por tradutores não encontrados no próprio texto grego. Por esta razão, muitos exegetas supuseram que v. 8 Deus tenha dirigido diretamente a Seu Filho através desta profecia messiânica do salmista (cf. atos 28.25-27, etc.). Veja aqui o escritor da Oneness, Dr. Daniel Segraves (Nota: Não fará nada para Dalcour se opor ao meu apelo a um acadêmico Oneness, uma vez que apela aos trinitarianos praticamente em todas as partes do seu livro e nós temos estudiosos trinitarianos igualmente iguais nesta duplicação. ): Hebreus 1.8: Neste caso, as palavras que ele diz não estão no texto grego são fornecidas pelos tradutores. Um exame do Salmo 45: 6, do qual este versículo é citado, revela imediatamente que o falante é o autor humano do salmo. Ele declara, por inspiração do Espírito Santo, a divindade dos Messias. (Hebreus, Better Things Vol. 1, p. 51 Dr. Daniel L. Segraves) Após um longo endereço textual de Hebreus 1.10, conclui Segraves (ibid. Pp. 54-58): Desde o contexto imediato da citação do Salmo 102 : 25-27 não sugere que Deus seja o falante e, como o texto real hebraico do Salmo 102 tem o salmista como o falante em todo, parece melhor ver o falante nos versículos 10-12 como o salmista. Se o escritor de Hebreus pretendesse sugerir que Deus era o falante, parece que ele teria começado sua citação da Septuaginta no Salmo 102: 23 para remover qualquer pergunta. O ponto do versículo 10, então, é que o Filho é melhor do que os anjos porque Ele estabeleceu os alicerces da terra e os céus são obra das Suas mãos. É interessante, no entanto, que quando o escritor de Hebreus se dirigiu ao Criador, ele identificou o Senhor do Senhor dos Septuagintas. Os leitores judeus de hebreus entenderiam isso como uma referência a Javé (Jeová, KJV). Por que o autor não se dirigiu a Ele como Filho, como nos versículos 5 e 8 Parece significativo que, ao falar diretamente da criação, o escritor de Hebreus não usou o termo Filho, mas Senhor, embora o Filho, como Deus se manifeste em carne, É o Criador, ao discutir a criação de todas as coisas, o autor se identificou como Senhor (Javé). A criação preexistiu a encarnação, e o termo filho pode ser usado somente em conjunto com a encarnação. Toda referência ao Filho em Hebreus tem a ver com a Incarnação. A palavra Filho não é usada de deidade preincarnada8230. O Filho é melhor do que os anjos porque Ele é o Senhor que criou todas as coisas, inclusive os anjos. Conforme mencionado acima, todo o contexto deste prólogo descreve irrefutavelmente a Incarnação e não faz absolutamente nada para promover a teologia trinitária. No entanto, se Dalcour persiste obstinadamente em forçar a sua eisegese de Deus-falando para Deus, ele também afirmará que o Filho de Deus tem mãos (v. 10) e um trono (v. 8), além de Deus, o Pai, isto é, Uma vez que Dalcour afirma que esses textos ensinam pessoas divinas distintas e coexistentes, ele exigirá, de forma correspondente, a separação corporal dentro do Godheadeach com mãos e tronos independentes no céu. Até onde ele está disposto a empurrar suas interpolações contra, permitindo que o contexto defina o texto. Ele agora limita suas aplicações para se conformar com sua teologia predisposta. Esperamos com grande ansiedade. Simplificando, dificilmente é irrefutável que um Yahveh se dirigisse a outro Yahveh na eternidade passado, cada um com distinto (ou distinto como Dalcour gosta de modificar) centros divinos de consciência . Tal interpretação tritheísta do prólogo hebraico é especialmente problemática, pois o mandamento mais importante é confessar que Deus é um Senhor LXX, Yahveh (Marcos 12.29), onde Cristo empregou com cuidado o 3-3 adjetivo singular masculino heis (). Uma vez que Dalcour gosta de atrair o uso grego consistente, este adjetivo é usado mais de 100 vezes no NT e, em nenhum caso, denotará mais de uma pessoa e, certamente, não é múltiplo Yahvehs como Dalcour postula repetidamente. Ou, como o NIDNTTE afirma da forma neutra deste adjetivo: De uma perspectiva diferente, esta verdade é expressa claramente em reivindicação de Jesus, eu e o Pai são um (João 10:30). Não devemos interpretar essas palavras para significar que a unidade de Jesus com o Pai consiste na união de duas pessoas ou seres anteriormente separados. Devemos compreendê-lo antes na luz de João 14: 9: Qualquer um que me viu tenha visto o Pai. Em um sentido cristão, ninguém pode falar de Deus sem falar concretamente de Jesus. (Dalcour): Conclusivamente, o prólogo de Hebreus é um dos prólogos mais teologicamente devastadores em todo o Novo Testamento para os defensores do Oneness. Não só o prólogo afirma a divindade e a eternidade do Filho, bem como a distinção entre o Pai e o Filho, mas também apresenta claramente o Filho como o próprio Agente da criação, o próprio Criador. Na verdade, como demonstrado acima, o oposto diametral é verdadeiro. Na verdade, eu faria a afirmação de Dalcours aqui completamente: o prólogo de Hebreus é um dos prólogos mais teologicamente devastadores de todo o Novo Testamento para defensores trinitários. A menos que, os estudiosos trinitários desejem nos informar que um Deus co-eterno, o Filho, fez o seguinte feito a Ele na eternidade-passado: falou apenas nestes últimos dias (v. 2, isso não fará por Dalcour, uma vez que ele sugere que o O anjo do Senhor era o suposto Filho preincarnado), nomeado herdeiro de todas as coisas (v. 2), tornou-se melhor do que os anjos (v. 4), herdou um nome superior aos anjos (v. 4), foi dito por Deus o Pai que um dia Ele seria Seu Pai e Ele seria Seu Filho (v. 5), os anjos tiveram que ser ordenados a adorar a Deus Filho (v. 6), possui um trono separado do Pai e do Espírito Santo (v 8), tem um deus (v. 9), foi ungido por outra pessoa de Deus divina, co-igual (v. 9), e teve companheiros na eternidade. Passado. Claramente, o prólogo hebreu descreve a Encarnação e não troca o meio do fluxo Deste hino antigo, supostamente apresentando mais de um Deus-personto ao vergonha de apologistas trinitários como Dalcour. Em suma, como demonstramos acima, os argumentos devastadores de Dalcours contra o cristianismo bíblico e o monoteísmo não destroem nada além do próprio dado bíblico. Curiosamente, é digno de nota que as passagens utilizadas pelos trinitários para ensinar Cristo como uma pessoa distinta, o Deus e o Deus do Deus, que se apresentam, aparecem em um contexto de salmão comemorativo (ver 1024projeto20131025 os hinos da Bíblia). Ou seja, segmentos do NT, como Philippians 2.5-11, Colossenses 1.15-20, Hebreus 1, John 1, I Corinthians 8.6, et al. Foram usados ​​no contexto para ludicar os Messias vindo como Deus envolveu e para comemorar Sua eficaz obra cruzada, que foi preordenada antes da criação das eras (por exemplo, Apocalipse 13.8, João 1.1-14 17.1-6). Neste contexto bíblico, juntemo-nos aos escritores inspiradores da Escritura para glorificar a Cristo como o único Deus (I Timothy 1.17) revelado na carne predestinada antes da própria criação. Obrigado por ler o Élder JR Ensey acaba de lançar o seu mais recente (435 P.) Trabalham sobre os erros atuais que são propagados por vários defensores 8211 ilimitados da Unidade KJV. As a contributor to this book I can attest that Elder Ensey leaves no stone unturned and factually refutes the outright misinformation put forth in recent years concerning this topic. In this tome, Bro. Ensey interacts with renowned text-critics themselves as well as consults and offers further insight(s) into the most respected and meticulous treatments of this issue. For those interested in the raw facts of text-critical issues and the transmission process 8211 devoid of emotional appeals 8211 this highly exhaustive publication is easily the most recent and in-depth treatment of this subject matter. Of course, we have addressed this topic before on this blog HERE (see also the 8220comments8221 section at the bottom of this article). Elder8217s Ensey8217s treatise can be purchased HERE . The following rejoinder is written in response to Dr. James Whites recent comments on his podcast about the (supposed) beliefs of Oneness Pentecostal believers. On his show, White is responding to the assertions of neophyte Oneness believer Marcus Rogers who posted a clip on-line attacking the doctrine of the Trinity. Readers can corroborate Whites remarks with what appears below here: aomin. orgaoblogindex. php20160225south-africa-update-responding-marcus-rogers-trinity Beginning at around the 28-minute mark, White begins his usual erroneous charges against what he thinks Oneness Pentecostals actually believe and teach. I pick up the narrative at this mark and have posted Whites most relevant remarks below. Whites comments will appear below in black . with my responses in blue (as here) immediately underneath Whites assertions. God Bless (White): Oneness Pentecostals deny the deity of the Son of God. They believe the Son is a created being who began His existence at His birth in Bethlehem. First, theres a sense in which White himself believes the Son of God came into existence at Bethlehemunless White wishes to inform us that Christs humanity equally pre-existed His birth at Bethlehem If so, then White needs to go shake hands with his Mormon brethren That is, if White concedes that the Son of Gods humanity was an aspect of His existence (and I dont know anyone that would deny this), he equally confesses a facet of the Son of God that came into His existence at Bethlehem. Why chide us for denying that the Son of God preexisted as a separate divine individual apart from the Father and Holy Spirit, when White does the identical thing with Christs humanity Double standards are usually a sign of failed argumentation. Worse, Oneness believers deny neither the Son of Gods deity nor His preexistence. We deny that the Son of God preexisted in the fashion that Trinitarians claim, namely, as a second of three separate divine individualseach with separate centers of consciousness. Guilty as charged and proud of it The Bible nowhere teaches such clear and open tritheism, despite how many times Trinitarian apologists like White shout otherwise (they fight against themselves with their own testimony, as we shall see below). The Scriptures teach that the Son of God is very God Himself revealed as a man (I Timothy 3.16 John 1.1-14 Colossians 2.9 et. al.). That is, the Son is the one OT Yahveh in His human existence, confined to the self-imposed limitations of the incarnation. However, the Bible equally teaches that He is the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God according to His divinity. The Son will always be God enfleshed. Moreover, the Scriptures clearly teach that the Son of God preexisted His birth in Bethlehem in Gods foreknowledge (Isaiah 9.6 Romans 5.14 John 1.1-5 Revelation 13.8 Colossians 1.15-18 et. al.). However, one will search in vain to locate the Son of God identified as a supposed second of three separate, co-equal, co-eternal, divine individuals in the Trinity. Such a concept would be completely foreign to the Jewish writers of the Bible (Note: I know about Segals Two Powers in Heaven work, but thats beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say for now that Ive read scathing academic rejoinders to Segals volume). Ironically, White repeatedly attempts to correct Rogers on what Trinitarians believe and yet he clearly doesnt understand what Oneness Pentecostals believe, as evidenced by several of his fallacious accusations below (even though hes been repeatedly told otherwise). (White): Trinitarians dont believe in three divine beings. Rogers does not understand the difference between being and person. In our 2011 debate in Brisbane, AUS, White openly affirmed that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit existed as three divine individuals, each with their own separate centers of consciousness apart from the other two divine individuals (see my initial cross-examination of White). Obviously, it doesnt take a NASA rocket scientist to see that this explanation is clearly tantamount to three divine beings. Indeed, were I to ask Trinitarians to provide a definition of tritheism-proper, how would Whites confession above look any different other than different names for each separate divine individual Further, Marcus Rogers has no need to understand the difference between being and personsince there is no difference Every human being that White has ever met is equally a person This is nothing more than a Trinitarian fabrication in an attempt to dodge the self-inflicted bullet of tritheism. Theres simply no Scripture whatsoever to support this made-up assertion. (White): The Modalists deny multiple divine persons . First, Oneness believers are not Modalists in the sense White thinks. Ancient Modalists believed in three successive modes of Gods existence. That is, the Father became the Son, who then in turn became the Holy Spirit. Oneness Pentecostals believe in three simultaneous modes of existence of the one single Godbig difference. And, Trinitarians have been told this ad nauseum infinitum. Yet Trinitarian scholars just plod along with their fingers stuck in their ears as if were not informing them otherwise. Ironically, White and Trinitarians equally believe in three simultaneous modes of existence within God. They simply define these simultaneous modes of existence (radically) different than Oneness believers do, namely, as separate divine individuals (then tell us that we have the schizophrenic God). Hence, Oneness believers could just as easily charge Trinitarians with Modalism in this sense. (White): In Oneness, the Son of God is two persons and the Father indwells the human being who is the Son. To the Oneness, the prayers of Jesus are the human side of Jesus praying to the divine side of Jesus. In Trinitarianism, the prayers of Jesus are God the Son, with an independent-separate center of consciousness, praying to God the Father, who is equally possessive of an independent-separate center of consciousness (and God the Holy Spirit is said to have the same). Each are fully God, but so radically separated from one another that one on Earth can pray to another in Heaven 8211 as God. Hence, in Trinitarian theology, God prays to God (some of the extreme tritheists even translate John 1.1 as God was with God). Who has the greater problem with the prayer life of Jesus Further, the Scriptures themselves teach that Christ prayed in the days of His flesh (Hebrews 5.7). Does this sound like God is praying to God 8221 Of course not. This is simply one more Trinitarian fabrication. Jesus Christ prayed to God, who is ontologically an invisible, omnipresent Spirit. Jesus was a man in every respect like we are, excepting sin (Hebrews 2.17). The prayers of Christ no more demand separate divine individuals in the Trinity than our prayers demand the same. This is but another Trinitarian assumption pawned off as fact . Moreover, Trinitarians become irate when we tell them that they are actually tritheists masquerading as monotheists (even though theyre the ones who supply the ammunition). They call for fairness in identification, then turn right around and charge that Oneness believers have a bi-personal Jesus. I do not know of a single Oneness believer who radically separates and identifies Jesus as two persons. In fact, both Oneness and Trinitarianism confess that Jesus is both God and Man without mixing the two natures. If Oneness theology translates into a supposed bi-personal Jesus in this regard, then so does Trinitarianism (unless they wish to confess the ancient heresy known as Uticianism8221) This is a straw man attack propped up solely by Trinitarian apologists, but not the actual confession of Oneness advocates. Perhaps Trinitarians should allow us to define what we believe instead of always trying to inform us of the same Worse, what White erroneously charges Oneness with, Trinitarians whole-heartedly confess in the overall theological picture. That is, White ridicules us for something we do not accept regarding the identity of Christ (i. e. a bi-personal Jesus), then commits the very thing he accuses us of as it relates to the identity of God altogether (i. e. a tri-personal God). The typical unequal scales of Trinitarians are polished and shining nicely Regarding the Father indwelling the human being, Jesus Himself stated, the Father dwells in me (John 14.10 ). Tell us Mr. White, when Jesus spoke here did His statement include His humanity Or, will you now offer a bi-personal Jesus and tell us that the prayers of Christ do not include His humanity We simply allow the statements of Jesus to stand on their own merits and inform our theological conclusions. Indeed, its the biblical data itself that holds us hostage in demanding that we deny your three divine individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness (e. g. Colossians 2.8-10 Mark 12.28 John 8.24). Finally, we do not define the Son of God as merely a human being. And, youve been told this ad nauseum. Are you not willing to learn like youre repeatedly asking other to do from you (White): In Oneness theology, the created Son prays to the uncreated Father. After the Resurrection, the Son of God becomes the Holy Spirit to the Oneness advocate. Then I take it you dont believe the prayers of Christ involve His created humanity Tell us Mr. White, was Jesus humanity created or uncreated The direct and straight answer to this question will reveal your (typical) hypocritical charges. We do not confess that the Son of God becomes the Holy Spirit and ceases being the Son as in ancient Modalism. Rather, Jesus Christ is biblically identified as simultaneously Father (John 14.9-10 Isaiah 9.6), Son (Luke 1.35) and Holy Spirit (John 14.16-18 2 Corinthians 3.14-17). For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form (Colossians 2.9). This is not a misunderstanding of these passages, but rather is the straightforward, normative reading of these Scriptures. One has to perform theological gymnastics to somehow cram three separate divine individuals into the verses referenced above. And, for good measure, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 8216Abba Father82178221 (Galatians 4.6). Once again, we will accept the testimony of Scripture over-against the religious traditions of Trinitarians. (White): We make the distinctions between being and person everyday of our lives. We would be quite curious what day of our lives we would not equally identify a human being as a person8221 Every human being is simultaneously a person. Again, this is nothing more than a Trinitarian invention in a desperate attempt to force their religious tradition into the biblical texta text that never states the same (in over 1,500 years of Spirit-breathed Scripture). (White): Marcus Rogers assumes Yahweh is uni-personal. How else would White have us to interpret the over 9,000 single-person-pronoun that God used to define Himself (e. g. Isaiah 44.24 45.5 etc.) If we heard someone using a single-person-pronoun to identify themselvesthen that same individual claimed they existed as three separate co-equal individualswed be calling some 1-800 numbers for them Trinitarians impose multiple separate divine individuals on a single-person-pronoun then inform Oneness believers that we deny the inspired grammar White has it diametrically opposite in his charge aboveits the Trinitarians doing the assuming relative to Gods identity. Theyll never locate their assumptions in the actual inspired text itself (White): The Bible forces Trinitarians to believe in one divine being and three divine persons. Since the Bible is Whites final source of appeal here, specifically where can we locate and read this hostage-taking force in the same: In reality, the Bible forces the honest heart to deny the concept of three divine individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness and simply affirm that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is none other than the sole God of the Bible enfleshed (e. g. Mark 12.29 John 8.24 Colossians 2.9 I John 5.20, I Timothy 3.16). (White): Trinitarians understand Matthew 28.19 in the light of the baptism of Christ in chapter 3, where the Father speaks from Heaven. Jesus was not a 8216ventriloquist8217. If both the Father and the Son are equally God, then Whites theological construct still has God (the Father) speaking to Himself (God the Son)which makes God as a whole a ventriloquist White clearly does not comprehend the omnipresence of God on this point. God is able to speak simultaneously to someone in America, Africa, and China, but this obviously does not demand three separate divine persons for each simultaneous manifestation of God. Further, White again demonstrates his conceptual tritheism by appealing to this passage in an attempt to validate his Trinity of divine persons hypothesis. For if God the Father, God the Son (completely unscriptural identification of Christ) and God the Holy Spirit are as spatially and radically separated as a voice in heaven, a human being on Earth, and a birdTrinitarians need to quit masquerading as monotheists. Such a theological formulation would teach bodily separation and a radical separation in the Godhead to a degree that each divine individual can speak and act independently of one another, as God . Moreover, White assumes that chapter 28 is to be interpreted in light of chapter 3, but never proves his assertion. I would argue the diametrical opposite. That is, the culmination of Matthews gospel sheds further light on previous revelation. Indeed, progressive revelation is the whole premise of the Trinitarians appeal to the NT as the lens by which they interpret Yahveh8217s self-identifying claims in the OT, but somehow the salt has lost its taste when this hermeneutic model is applied to individual books of the Bible Let all the church say, agenda-driven-theology8221 (White): In Matthew 28.19, name is singular, but it doesnt say Jesus and Hes not squishing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit into one person. Neither does this (or any other) biblical text say, Trinity, separate divine persons, co-eternal Son, God the Son, etc. What White requires of Rogers he himself cannot produce. If doctrine is established on what the Bible does not say (a negative hermeneutic), then the Trinity dogma quickly dissolves. Further, the apostles to whom Christ was speaking understood His command (i. e. imperative mood) in Matthew 28.19 as describing the name of Jesus. How do we know Because that is what 8220name8221 they baptized in every where in the biblical data (e. g. Acts 2.38, Acts 8.16, Acts 10.48, Acts 19.5, Acts 22.16, Romans 6.3, I Corinthians 1.13, I Corinthians 6.11, Galatians 3.27, Colossians 2.12, et. al.). Since White is arguing from silence above, perhaps he can point us to the passage where converts were baptized in 8220the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit8221: We8217ve had no problem demonstrating our baptismal formulae above 8211 surely White can provide the same baptismal passages for his position This does not even delve into the law of Greek prepositions used in these accounts (cf. in BDAG, Bruce, Thayer, et al.). White is fond of appealing to Greek prepositions. Will he hold to the same 8220consistency8221 he8217s continuously calling for in Muslims, KJVO8217s, etc. I asked White in our debate in 2011 to identify the name of Matthew 28.19and Im still waiting for an answer White does not provide an explanation of the single name in said passage, but merely resorts to reductio ad absurdum (Latin for reduction to absurdity) in ridiculing that Matthew 28.19 is not squishing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together into one person. However, White is here militating against the words of Jesus and the consistent usage of the Greek noun translated name () in the Bible. That is used to mean person in Scripture can be demonstrated with but a cursory glance. At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together) (Acts 1.15 NASB). The Greek noun translated persons above isyou guessed itthe genitive plural form of the singular noun , rendered name in Matthew 28.19 Same word, different form. Indeed, in Jewish culture (to whom Matthew was addressed), it was impossible to divorce an individuals name from their person (e. g. Abraham, Jacob, Peter, Paul). The onus rests squarely on the shoulders of White and his fellow Trinitarians to prove that name does not denote person and to assert such is to turn this text on its head. Granville Sharp Rule in this text since Sharp never applied his rule to Matthew 28.19 and he stated there was an exception to this rule should the context explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate . This is clearly the case in Matthew 28.19 based upon the genitival phrases translated of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spiritmodifying the single name. Further, as renowned linguist Dr. Daniel Wallace, in an email to Jason Weatherly asserted, Sharp didnt spend much time on his 6 th rule. But its an overstatement to say that just because two articular nouns are joined by kaiand they must refer to different persons. There are several examples where this is not the case.8221 (White): There was never a time in Jesus life when He was the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To the contrary, weve just read it in Matthew 28.19 The same name ofthe Son was equally the name of the Father and. the Holy Spirit. What is the name of the Son: This name is simultaneously the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Further, when asked about the whereabouts of the Father, Jesus expressed surprise that Philip still did not comprehend that He was the One he was inquiring about: Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father I ask the honest reader, does Christs response here make any sense whatsoever if Hes not the very one Philip was asking to see Imagine asking me to show you my father, whos someone other than me, and I respond by saying, Have I been with you so long and you do not know me How can you say, Show me your father Completely non-sensical. (See also Isaiah 9.6, Colossians 2.9) Clearly Jesus is the Son of God (e. g. Luke 1.35). Jesus is identified as the Holy Spirit in the clearest possible way, But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away . Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit . and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Corinthians 3.14-17 ESV). The typical Trinitarian dodge in this text is to say that since Paul was contrasting the OT letter of the Mosaic Law with the liberty of NT faith, the phrase the Lord is referring to Yahveh of the OT. However, note that in v. 14 Paul states that only in Christ is the veil removed. V. 16 further explicates this declaration in affirming when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Paul had just expressed in concrete terms that only through Christ is the veil removed. He is using Christ and Lord interchangeably, as was Pauls habit. Indeed, he had already informed this same church that to them there was one Lord, Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 8.6). It is at this point that Paul drops the hammer: Now the Lord (i. e. the same one in whom the veil in removed, Christ) is the Spirit. It could not possibly be plainer and its embarrassing to watch Trinitarians attempt to evade the plain reading of the inspired biblical data here (and elsewhere). They are forced to spin this text topsy-turvy to accommodate their religious tradition, as with many other passages. Additionally, in Revelation 2.2-3.22 Jesus is the speaker to the churches, but in each instance he concludes by exhorting that they should hear what the Spirit says ( ). The speaker in these texts identifies Himself as the Spirit and White is simply mistaken. (White): Marcus Rogers is assuming something contradictory to what the rest of the Bible teaches (i. e. that Jesus is the name of Matthew 28.19). Actually, the polar opposite is true. Its White whos assuming that Jesus is not taught as the name of the Father and Holy Spirit elsewhere in the biblical datait most certainly is (e. g. John 17.11 John 14.26). White merely assumes the assumption of Marcus Rogers without proving the same (White): The Oneness position cannot survive the gospel of John where the distinctions between Father, Son and Holy Spirit are clearly made. Though the irony is not surprising after years of dealing with White, it is the doctrine of the Trinity that cannot survive the gospel of John, in particular chapters 14-16 as well as the Johannine prologue. Oneness believers readily affirm that theres a distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, White assumes that distinction automatically translates into multiple divine individuals, each with their own-independent centers of consciousness. It does not and this is one of several sticking points between Oneness and Trinitarians (and always will be). For clarity, let us define the biblical distinctions between the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit below. The Father is biblically presented as the One OT God who functions transcendent to the space-time continuum and outside the limitation of the Incarnation (Malachi 2.10 Matthew 3.17 John 12.28). The Son of God is identified as this self-same single God descendent as a human being for the sake of redeeming a lost humanity (contra just the elect) and functioning within the confines of the self-imposed limitations of the Incarnation (I Timothy 3.16 John 1.1 Titus 2.13). The Holy Spirit is this self-same God in emanation by supernaturally interacting within His creation (e. g. Judges 14.6 Luke 1.35 Acts 2.1-4). Three simultaneous manifestations of the one person of God: The Father is God Transcendent . the Son is God Descendent . the Holy Spirit is God in Emanation . Not three divine individuals, each with their own separate centers of consciousness apart from the other two divine individuals (a clear departure from biblical monotheism). (White): In John 17.5, is Jesus having an internal conversation Is Jesus schizophrenic8221 Perhaps White should ask himself this question about God altogether at the baptism of Christ, the prayers of Christ and Genesis 1.26 (where Trinitarians attempt to tell us that God is speaking internally). That is, if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-eternal, divine individuals, then God is having an internal conversation in these supposed Trinitarian proof texts. Schizophrenic indeed Of course, this is another clear case of argumentum ad absurdum by White, a logical fallacy that a professional apologist should know better than to make. (White): Jesus uses personal pronouns of the Father and says the Father is the only true God. Whites double standard concerning single-person-pronoun usage has been pointed out to him ad nauseum infinitum . That is, in the NT he argues that a single-person-pronoun denotes a one-single person, which concedes the normative understanding of a single-person-pronoun. However, when the Trinitarian pronoun model is applied to the ca. nine thousand single-person pronouns used in the OT by Yahveh, suddenly the same pronouns mean being and not a sole person for White. Why is it that a single-person-pronoun in the NT means one person, but the same single-person-pronoun doesnt mean one person in Yahvehs OT self-identifications Simple, theological preference The shift in meaning of the pronouns by Trinitarians plainly exposes their agenda-driven theological conclusions. Ironically, White is constantly parroting the terms sola Scriptura (Latin ablative for by Scripture alone ) and tota Scriptura (all or total Scripture), then shifts his grammatical criteria from the NT to the OT, or, the totality of Scripture. Moreover, how White can actually quote that the Father is the only true God as coming off the lips of the One Trinitarians tell us is the second of three co-equal, co-eternal divine individuals is as mind-boggling as Hillary Clinton identifying a politician as a liberal Indeed, the masculine singular adjective (which is highly significant also) translated only () in John 17.3 is lexically defined as: (2) as singly existing only, lone (JN 17.3) (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT). 58.50 (1) , : the only entity in a class 8211 only one, alone (Louw amp Nida cf. BDAG LXX). Hence, when John uses the Greek noun translated God (), hes not thinking of divine members in the Trinity, again, a concept that wouldve been completely foreign to the OT canon that he was raised on and hence his entire paradigmatic view of Scripture. (White): In John 17.3 Jesus said eternal life consists of two things, both the Father and the Son. And Is this supposed to automatically equate to divine individuals with separate minds8221 This is merely Whites empty assumption and not the actual biblical data itself. What about the Holy Spirit Why does Jesus omit the supposed third divine individual from the criteria of eternal life (as is very often the case) Where has the co-equality of the Trinity suddenly gone (White): In John 17, the cross is a accomplished reality from Jesus perspective, it is (definitely) going to happen. Agreed, but it had not actually happened yet had it White actually empowers the Oneness point here regarding John 17.5. In v. 4 Jesus declares, I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Had Jesus actually accomplished the work of the cross yet No. In fact, the surrounding context of John 17 is littered with predestination-anticipatory statements: Incidentally, notice the sent language used by Christ, which, certainly does not naturally lend itself to the idea He willingly volunteered to descend from Heaven to Earth. Its likewise interesting that Jesus declares in v. 4 He was given the work to do. Again, does this sound like He volunteered to come from Heaven as Trinitarians inform us Is this the normative language someone uses who freely undertakes a task Of course not. Its within this surrounding predestined context that v. 5 appears. That is, John 17 is littered with Christ speaking in a very real, but celebratory-anticipative sense of the work to be donea work that was just as much a reality as if already accomplished. Just as the glory of the cross before the world existed (Revelation 13.8 Romans 5.14). To deny this is to deny the testimony of Scripture. (White): Jesus said Glorify me with the glory I had by your side . The Greek preposition and pronoun translated with you in the last clause of 17.5 is in the dative case with a semantic range. See below the UBS Concise Greek-English Dictionary . prep. with: (1) genitive, from, of ( one8217s provisions, money or gift his family Mr 3:21) by, with (2) dative, with, in the presence of, before in the judgment of near, beside for (3) accusative, beside, by, at on, along to than, more than, above rather than contrary to. As anyone can plainly see, beside is only one of several potential meanings of this preposition in this case. As demonstrated above, dative equally means in the judgment of, which is perfectly aligned with the Oneness position (cf. LampN, Thayer, et. al. for this meaning of dative). Trinitarians cherry-pick the definition that seems to best fit their theology in John 17.5 and we simply have another case of creedal belief pawned off as grammatical fact. Out of the 24 reputable translations that I checked, not a single translation adopts Whites quirky rendering, combining numerous professional linguists. (Note: He did the same thing with Philippians 2 in our debate in 2011, providing his own peculiar translation, which he failed to inform the audience was his personal rendering. Guess I can now do the same thing in John 10.30) Additionally, if Whites divine members of the Trinity are each fully God, then they are each omnipresent. If each member of the Trinity is not omnipresent then they cannot be fully God. Either way, omnipresence does not have a side (cf. Robertsons WP) and this Trinitarian conundrum has been pointed out to White ample times before. (White): Jesus doesnt say He was a glorious plan. He said with the glory I had, is this a plan speaking This is desperation from the Oneness at this point and is painful to watch. Since White has now resorted to formulating doctrine based upon what Jesus did not say, neither does Jesus say He was a second of three divine, co-equal, co-eternal individuals in eternity past. This is supplied by an over-eager Trinitarian exegesisdesperation indeed Its simply nowhere found in the mouth of Jesus despite how hard Trinitarians like White try to cram these words down the same. White often charges Oneness believers with supposedly having a bi-personal Jesus who can think and act independently of either His divinity or humanity at any given time (though White unwittingly believes the same thing, unless he wishes to blend Christs divinity and humanity). Though we certainly acknowledge an ontological distinction between the deity and humanity of Jesus, as pointed out above, Whites mischaracterization is not the confession of Oneness Pentecostals and is tantamount to but another straw man attack. Yet, amusingly, this is the very thing that White is doing in his interpretation of John 17.5 That is, White insists that Christ is speaking independent of His humanity in this text, whereas Oneness would say that Jesus is speaking as God enfleshed. In other words, the prayers of Christ always include His humanity (e. g. Hebrews 5.7) and context demonstrates no difference in John 17.5. If Christs prayer here includes His humanity (and it clearly does since He was the One speaking), then in what way did Christs humanity have glory with the Father before the world was created Simple, as the Lamb that had been slaughtered since the foundation of the world (Revelation 13.8 ISV ). Adam was said to be a type of Him who was to come . The Greek noun translated type () is lexically defined as (c) as a person or event serving as a prophetic symbol to prefigure a future person or event type (RO 5.14) ( Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT ). Note that Adam was not identified as a type of Him who preexisted, but rather of Him who was to come (future existence). Since the whole context of John 17 was the hour (that) has come, namely the cross, consistent hermeneutics demands that we interpret the whole of John 17 in the same lightincluding v. 5. The glory spoken of by Christ in John 17.5 was the ensuing cross, equally referenced in Revelation 13.8 and said to be from the same era. Will Dr. White tell us Christ was literally slaughtered (, perfect passive participle form) since the creation of the world If no, why not God Himself used a single-person-pronoun, which White informs us demands one person in the NT, in declaring My glory I will not give to another (Isaiah 48.11, cf. 42.8). One divine person is the speaker here, and this one person declares He does not share His glory with anyone else. Trinitarians are militating against the very self-declaration of Yahveh in their misunderstanding of John 17.5 and the glory that Jesus speaks about. Besides, glory from such a time would be eternal glory, which obviously could not be lost. Clearly, these passages speak to the predestined eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3.11)His Son who was to come. White and fellow Trinitarians can ridicule the proleptic-anticipatory view of John 17.5 until dooms day, contra the multiple divine individuals canard, it will never make it any less biblical. In fact, not even all Trinitarian academics agree with White (as is the case with The Carmen Christie ): The glory of the completed redemption cannot literally be possessed until redemption is complete. If now the pre-existence of Jesus, according to the 17 th chapter of John is clearly ideal, this fact confirms the interpretation which has been given of the other passages. We conclude, then, that (Jn. 17:5) in which Jesus alludes to his preexistence, does not involve the claim that His preexistence was personal and real. (It is) to be classed with the other phenomena of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus, none of which have to do with metaphysical relationships with the Father (Dr. G. H. Gilbert, former professor of NT Literature at Chicago Theological Seminary The Revelation of Jesus: A Study of the Primary Sources of Christianity, p. 222). (White): In Philippians 2, the Son makes Himself of no reputation and doesnt consider equality with God something to be grasped. Then there was a time that Jesus Christ was not a co-equal member of the Trinity Moreover, the Greek nouns for neither Son () nor Father () appear in this text. If God be defined as a Trinity, then Christ doesnt consider equality with the Trinity something to be graspedplacing Jesus outside of the Trinity altogether Again, we have a case of theology being pawned off in the name of supposed biblical orthodoxy. Further, the Greek noun rendered form () in Philippians 2.6 defines as properly, form ( outward expression ) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence (cf. Dr. Gleason Archer, The Discovery Bible Moulton amp Milligan, et. al.). Did Christ have an embodiment with outward expression in His preexistent state If so, then White is now advocating bodily separation within the Godhead, all the while still feigning monotheism. The Carmen Christi of Philippians 2 is a hymnal context in which theres an exhortation toward humility using Christ as God enfleshed as the ultimate example. Though He was God in the flesh He laid aside His divine prerogatives as suchopting instead to assume the posture of a servant. Pauls point is to direct his audience to the God-man as their supreme prototype to emulate. He is not asking believers to mirror what God did (or does) in Heaven. Again, the quote below from an exhaustive volume on Philippians 2 demonstrates that even many Trinitarians do not agree with what White is constantly putting out as supposed fact. There is nothing grammatically that prevents one from taking the position that the hymn describes Christs abasement on Earth. Nor is there anything of necessity in the construction of the strophes that demands a pre-incarnate Son (Dr. R. P. Martins Carmen Christi ). The late renowned academic Dr. Robert Reymond equally disagreed with Whites preexistent Son theology in this ancient hymn obviously not intended for speculative attempts to identify Christ (i. e. theres no intended discussion of the Godhead in these passages). See Reymonds A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (pp. 253-264) where he provides an in-depth treatment of this passage and concludes the polar opposite of White. White repeatedly assumes that distinctions between the Father and Son (which Oneness Pentecostals gladly confess) automatically equate to multiple co-eternal, co-equal, separate, divine individuals. I have read tons of Whites literature and he has yet to prove this assertion from the biblical data itself. (White): In Philippians 2, the Son is a divine person thinking prior to the Incarnation. Hear the sound of the death-knell for Trinitariansim According to White, God the Son possessed independent thought processes apart from God the Holy Spirit and God the Father (each of whom equally had the same)and then he still masquerades as a monotheist with a straight face. We think not. If independent thinking by separate divine individuals (Whites explicit confession) does not connote polytheism, then what language would one use to convey more than one God Quite to the contrary, if God wanted to communicate the idea that He was an absolute single monad with no personal distinctions, what language would we expect Him to use Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 8220 I . the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone . (Isaiah 44.24 NASB) In this text, one divine individual is speaking (not just the one being of God) based upon the ordinary usage of the single-person-pronouns purposefully employed by Yahveh. If we allow the normative rules of grammar to stand on its own strength, multiple divine individuals or persons would be an intrusion into the biblical data in this (or any other) passage. In sum, the language used in the biblical data naturally conveys imagery of a single divine individual, and that without accident. Opposite, the language used by Trinitarians naturally communicates imagery of more than one Godwhich is why Trinitarians are constantly throwing out Tritheism disclaimers. Oneness believers do not have this problem. (White): Any biblical evidence demonstrating that the Son, as a divine person, preexisted His birth at Bethlehem is the end of Modalism. This is something Trinitarians assume, but never prove. I could just as easily state that any biblical evidence demonstrating that God existed as a single divine person is the end of Trinitarianism (and would indeed affirm so). The church is equally said to preexist its birth at Pentecost in eternity-past (He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1.4). Will Dr. White now insist the church preexisted as collateral divine persons as well If so, he needs to make the Mormon General Conference this year so he can fellowship his brethren This concept of ideal preexistence is littered all over Gods word and one has to be severely committed to a particular theological tradition to overlook and deny it (e. g. Revelation 13.8 Romans 4.17, 5.14 Ephesians 1.4). Further, I have clarified above that Oneness believers are not Modalists in the sense that White charges and will not take the time to reiterate it here. (White): Jesus said He has all authority in Heaven and Earth after the Resurrection, so who is he now (i. e. in His present state) In Oneness theology the Father is now taking the role of the Holy Spirit. Not to belabor the point, but White again confuses our position as Successive Modalism, where the Father becomes the Son while ceasing to be the Father, then the Son becomes the Holy Spirit while ceasing to be the Sonwhich we solidly reject as heresy. As pointed out above, Oneness believers wholeheartedly confess three simultaneous manifestations of the one single God of the Bible. Not surprisingly, White constantly chides Marcus Rogers for not understanding what Trinitarians actually believe when its painfully apparent that White doesnt comprehend what Oneness Pentecostals believe. Of course, this is par for the course in Whites world. Further, if Jesus is the second of three divine individuals in Heaven, and all authority has been relinquished to Him in the same locationhow much authority would that leave the other two divine individuals Clearly Matthew 28.18 cannot be used to advance a theology of multiple co-equal divine persons in Heaven. Jesus is now and forever the one God of the Bible in bodily form (Colossians 2.9 I John 5.20). (White): The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate persons because Jesus used personal pronouns of someone other than Himself. Again, its amazing how a single-person-pronoun in the NT demands one person, but a single-person-pronoun in the OT demands merely one being. The hypocrisy in the single person pronoun usage between testaments demonstrates how far Trinitarians are willing to dive to secure their religious tradition. When this was pointed out to White in our debate his response was a pompous-dismissive, Thats not even relevant to the topic. Then quit using the same argument in the NT Moreover, if using a personal pronoun of someone other than ones self demands separate persons then the Christ was someone other than Jesus (Luke 24.47), the disciple whom Jesus loved was someone other than John (John 19.26-27) and God Himself is someone other than Himself (Malachi 3.1) Illeism, the practice of referring to oneself in the third person contra the first person, is clearly interspersed all throughout Scripture and does not demand separate persons as White assumes. At any rate, Oneness has no problem acknowledging that theres a sense in which the Father is distinct from His Son. This is simply the common sense reading of many NT passages. However, as stated above, this does notnor will it everrequire separate coequal, coeternal divine individuals. (White): The words Oneness Pentecostalism isnt found in the Bible either. The adjective one is applied to God thousands of times in the Bible, while the adjective three is never applied to Gods identity. One - ness is a mere codification of the adjective one. Pentecost is clearly a biblical term (Acts 2.1), with the suffix - al used to identify with the NT churchs inauguration. Hence, the roots are indeed biblical with the suffixes appended for simple identification purposes. Now, well give you the same opportunity to demonstrate where in the Bible the root term for Trinity can be located: (White): In John 10.30, Jesus did not say I am the Father. He used a plural verb in this passage (translated are ). Neither did Jesus say, I am the second of three persons in the Trinity. See how easy a negative testimony is immobilized To illustrate, in the 1800s in Europe there was a murder trial in which the defendant testified, Your honor, I can bring 50 people to this stand who didnt see me commit this murder Obviously his testimony was rendered invalid since a negative affirmation does not equal positive evidence. Based upon this forensic principle, we throw out your flimsy quibble regarding Christs silent testimony. Concerning the plural verb translated are (), the eyewitnesses identify for us precisely what the plurality consisted of, You, being a man . make Yourself out to be God (v. 33). Far from revealing two separate divine individuals, the subjects of the plural verb are contextually defined as a visible Man and the invisible God. This is precisely the Oneness position. The NT plurality between the Father and the Son are due to the Incarnation when God added humanity to Himselfboth a plurality and humanity nonexistent in the OT data. Notice those standing on the spot understood Jesus statement as an affirmation of identification as the Father, which was a paradigmatic synonym for God to the Jewish listeners (e. g. John 8.41, we have one Father: God). If those actually listening to Christ speak these words recognized His declaration in John 10.30 as laying claim to be the Father, how can Trinitarians offer a radical revision of His assertion to equate into a second of three divine individuals in the Trinity Talk about theological leapfrog (White): In John 10.30, Jesus says I and the Father, we are one and He used a plural verb, not a singular verb. Out of 23 reputable translations, not a single one of them adopts Whites esoteric rendering of we are one. In fact, the Greek text has a separate pronoun for 8220we8221 (), which appears nowhere in John 10.30. In John 8.33 the same Greek verb is used where it is indeed translated we by various linguists: They answered Him, We are Abraham8217s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone. Why didnt these identical Johannine translators do the same in 10.30all both independent and in conjunction with one another A little thing called context, and as pointed out above the context is clear that Jesus statement is an affirmation of identity and not just unity with the Father (which any observant Jew would claim). You think White might have a bit of a theological agenda going on in John 10.30 Further, notice that Jesus said the Father and Him are one (), not two () as Trinitarians attempt to place in the mouth of Christ in this text. The fancy footwork of Trinitarians in John 10.30 (and John 14.9-10) is truly something to behold and would likely make Muhammad Ali blush with shame (White): Oneness Pentecostals bring up the singular (noun) name in Matthew 28.19, why dont they equally bring up the plural (verb) in John 10.30 We could just as easily point out how Trinitarians constantly bring up the plural verb translated are in John 10.30. Why dont they equally identify the singular name for us in Matthew 28.19 Hint: The same name ofthe Son was equally the name of the Father and Holy Spirit. What is the name of the Son: Further, using Whites own appeals of consistency, if a plural verb modifying the Father and the Son in John 10.30 demands two divine individuals, then what does the singular verb that modifies the Father and Son of Revelation 21.22 demand . (NA28)..for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple (Revelation 21.22 NASB). As anyone can plainly see, the verb modifying the Father and Son is singular in this text, both are in the nominative case and hence are the subjects of the singular verbwith temple being a singular noun as well. Will White hold to his own demands of consistent exegesis in this text where a single verb describes the Father and Son However, after dealing with White for years now were not quite willing to hold our breath (White): To say John 10.30 has Christ saying I am the Father is a gross misrepresentation of the text and ignores where Jesus has distinguished Himself (elsewhere) from the Father. To say John 10.30 has Christ saying I am the second divine individual in the Trinity is a gross misrepresentation of the text (as well as the entire biblical data) and ignores where God has unequivocally declared that He is a single monadusing a single-person - pronoun in doing so. Again, White assumes that Father and Son distinctions demand separate divine individuals when it clearly does not as pointed out above. One divine person is capable of simultaneously manifesting Himself in distinct fashion, just as God is able to speak to 4 different people at the same time in different parts of the world. As it relates to His oneness, God has clearly defined Himself using the strongest Greek adjective for one possible. In Mark 12.29 Jesus defines the most important biblical commandment as the absolute oneness of God, using the masculine singular in conjunction with a singular verb ( in the indicative mood ): Jesus answered, The most important is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one . Both older and modern lexicographers (e. g. Drs. Kenneth Wuest, Spiros Zodhiates, Vincent, Thayer, BDAG, LXX usage, et. al.) affirm the Greek masculine-singular adjective for one () defines as one person. Vincents quote below at John 10.30 for the neuter singular one is representative and can be confirmed in the sources above: Here, Dr. Vincent concedes that had Christ used the masculine singular adjective for one () in John 10.30 one person would be in view. Yet in Mark 12.29 Jesus does indeed use the masculine singular adjective for one, as well as an accompanying singular verb: . Regarding Dr. Vincents comment on the neuter one of John 10.30, we have above both contextually and grammatically identified the plurality in said verse as visible Man and invisible GodFather merged into one person. Hence, though not the normative Greek term employed, the neuter adjective for one in John 10.30 may equally mean one personunless lexicographers wish to make God out to be impersonal (i. e. neuter) See here BDAG: , , , gen. , , a numerical term, one (Hom. ) 1 a single person or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one . That is, the most important biblical commandment is to believe that God is one person via the masculine singular . This adjectival cardinal numeral is used ca. 100 times in the NT alone and never means more than one person. So conclusive is the force of that translators of the Classic Edition of the Amplified Bible rendered Galatians 3.20, which uses this particular Greek adjective, as God is only one Person . Since my debate with White, a critical consultant for The Lockman Foundation (trust me, he will gleefully and readily confirm this), a new Amplified Bible has appeared that omits this translation, but the lexical force remains intact and enjoys much corroborative attestation despite the apparent backpedaling (e. g. Galatians 3.28 NEB, Thayer, The Living Bible which uses this same adjective). Much more could be pointed out about this Greek adjective for one purposefully employed by Christ here, but for the sake of time well forge ahead. Suffice it so say that unfortunately Trinitarians like White are in denial and rejection of this biblical mandate. (White): The Oneness Pentecostal quotations of Deuteronomy 6.4 assumes the word echad (one) means one person and not one being. This is easily turned around, White here assumes the Hebrew adjective echad used in Deuteronomy 6.4 means one being and not one persondespite the fact that its used with single-person-pronouns. Again, to force-feed multiple divine persons into a single-person-pronoun is to turn the normal rules of grammar and conversation on its head in order to protect a religious tradition. Echad is employed ca. 962 times in Scripture and out of the 943 times its rendered 8220one,8221 its used to indicate a single individual or character 901 times. In the remaining instances where the context describes a group effort, it still means one, but it is generally describing human beings working in unison. Obviously this would not reflect a monotheistic divinity since human beings possess bodily separation and could not be used to describe the Godhead (not to mention the hermeneutical principle of interpreting the micro in light of the macro witness). (White): Nowhere does the Bible speak of dividing God into pieces and parts as Marcus Rogers describes. Yet White repeatedly informs us that in Genesis 19.24 God the Son (again, an entirely unbiblical identification for Christ) rained fire on Sodom from God the Father in Heaven. But theres no need to hijack this text of its context: Then the LORD rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was sent down from the sky by the LORD (Genesis 19.24 NET see also NIV, NLT, etc.). We can appreciate the honesty of Trinitarians in the NET study notes here: The text explicitly states that the sulfur and fire that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah was sent down from the sky by the Lord. What exactly this was, and how it happened, can only be left to intelligent speculation . but see J. P. Harland, The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain , BA 6 (1943): 41-54. If Whites interpretation of this verse is taken at face value (even though the text itself does not state this), then the passage would openly teach two Yahvehs with bodily separation since nothing is said about persons. White is also fond of appealing to the now infamous quote by Dr. A. T. Robertson in his grammar where he asserts that the preposition translated with in the accusative case of John 1.1b demands that Jesus and the Father were supposedly face to face with each other in eternity (See Robertsons Word Pictures in the New Testament . 6 vols. 5.4). The point is, White does indeed unwittingly argue for dividing God up into pieces in both the OT and NT. My prediction Instead of honestly pondering the concepts in his mind, he will do his best to spin his way out of this glaring, self-refuting conundrum. (White): In John 1.1 the Word is distinguished from God. To the contrary, and the Word was God ( ). Trinitarians often emphasize John 1.1b while sacrificing the plain reading of 1.1c. We are well aware of the definitive (i. e. personal identification) vs. qualitative (i. e. ontological identification) syntactical arguments in this text and would argue in favor of the definitive application (as do even many Trinitarian exegetes). In all honesty, we acknowledge that theres a sense in which 1.1b distinguishes the Word from God, but 1.1c explicates 1.1b andto borrow from Whites playbook in John 10.30nothing is said of divine persons, Father, Son, Trinity, etc. This is simply a Trinitarian deduction and not a straightforward reading of the inspired text. In sum, the same one the Word was with is the same one the Word was. This is what the inspired passage actually says. (White): In John 1.18 the unique God has made the Father known, not made Himself known. Then White has two Gods at this point since, again, nothing is said of multiple divine individuals, Trinity, etc.8221 Again, we have a Trinitarian deduction not stated in the actual biblical text. More importantly, John 1.18 contains a textual variant: No one has seen God at any time the only begotten God ( ) who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1.18 NASB) No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son ( ), who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him . (John 1.18 NKJV) In his excellent book The King James Only Controversy p. 259, White concedes, the evidence for the reading only begotten Son is very great indeed. It is obviously the majority reading of the MSS, translations and early church fathers. Dr. Allen Wikgren, a member of the UBS-3 text and NA26 committees, wrote: It is doubtful that the author would have written (only begotten God), which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition (). At least a decision would be preferable. A. W., p. 198, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . Metzger, 1971, United Bible Societies. While several UBS committee members differed with Wikgren, yet he possessed tremendous text-critic and linguistic ability and should not be lightly dismissed. Indeed, the NET translator notes provide ample text-critic attestation for the reading only begotten Son: A C K 565. 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424 M lat sy Cl Cl. Personally, from the way the NTand John in particularuses the term only begotten () I would argue in favor of the reading only begotten Son ( ). Text-critic quotations abound in favor of both only begotten God and only begotten Son. It is not my intention here to delve into this topic at great length. I would commend the exhaustive work of John Dahms The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered . See also this link for a fair review of the textual evidences of John 1.18 weighed: As it relates to Whites scorn above, the aorist verb () rendered has explained Him (i. e. the Father) clearly points us back to the Incarnation. Regarding this Greek verb The Discovery Bible notes, properly, lead out completely ( thoroughly bring forth), i. e. explain ( narrate ) in a way that clarifies what is uppermost (has priority ). Far from exegeting one of multiple, co-equal, divine individuals, this text states that the Son of God lifted out the Father in the Incarnation. This is precisely the Oneness stance and only advances our position (White): Jesus didnt say I am going to send a part of me as the Holy Spirit. 8221I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans I will come to you . (John 14.16-18 NASB). While most Oneness believers would not say that Christ sent a part of himself, in describing the coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus employed the first person singular verb translated I will come (). The Greek noun rendered orphans () is similarly enlightening. The context is clearly the future procession of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus identifies in this text as he that abides (present active indicative ) with you. That is, this text plainly states that when He comes back as the Spirit of truth He will not abandon us as orphans, but will be in ( ) believers. No wonder the Holy Spirit is identified as the Spirit of Christ (e. g. Romans 8.9 Colossians 1.27 et. al.). Are we to honestly conclude that these verses naturally identify Christ as someone other than the Holy Spirit We think not. This erases all doubt that Jesus is not the one coming as the Spirit of Truth and though perhaps not worded correctly, Marcus Rogers statement stands. (White): Jesus said I and the Father will send the Holy Spirit as another comforter. The Holy Spirit is identified as a person sent by the Father and Son (from Heaven). As pointed out above, if each divine individual in the Trinity is omnipresent how can omnipresence be sent where its already present Again, omnipresence is not sent anywhereits already there Trinitarians misunderstand the sent language of the Bible in assuming the verb means spatial movement from one sphere into another by eternal divine persons. Yet Christ is said to have been sent () in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8.3 NASB). Obviously the sent language of the Bible does not demand separate eternal persons, or Christ had flesh in Heaven (cf. John 1.6) The Psalmist clearly affirms that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent: Where can I go from Your Spirit . Or where can I flee from Your presence . If I ascend to heaven, You are there If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there (Psalm 139.7-8 NASB). On p. 338 of Dr. Daniel Wallaces volume Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics he affirms, Neither in Eph. 1:14 nor in any other text is there clear syntactical evidence for the personality of the Spirit . There are, of course, many lines of evidence that demonstrate this, but the attempt to use Greek grammar in such a manner is facile and often creates theological problems that are greater than the cure. While we appreciate his honesty in this quotation, to be fair and crystal clear, as a Trinitarian Dr. Wallace does not deny the Holy Spirit as a person.8221 However, the force of his quote above demonstrates that this position is not due strictly to Greek grammar, but rather other lines of evidence. Of course, the Greek noun rendered Spirit () appears in the neuter gender and never in the normative masculine as one would expect if personhood were in view. Trinitarian evasion and dodges of this grammatical fact aboundbut this is simply a raw biblical reality. (White): In Oneness theology, how does the Father and a human being send God who is the Father and then becomes the Holy Spirit In Trinitarian theology how does omnipresence send omnipresence where it already exists And, the Father does not become the Holy Spirit, God has always ontologically existed as a Holy Spirit who Fathered His Son in time (e. g. Luke 1.35 Galatians 4.4). The Father and Holy Spirit are the one-single God in distinct roles relative to the redemption of mankind, not multiple divine individuals that no biblical writer was ever inspired to enunciate. Hence, theres a sense in which the Father both isand is notthe Holy Spirit. Interestingly, in giving assurance of comfort during persecution Jesus informs believers not to worry about what they will say. For, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say8221 (Luke 12.12 NASB). However, Matthews account of this saying of Christ elucidates the very identity of the Holy Spirit in proclaiming, it is the Spirit of your Father ( ) who speaks in you (10.20 NASB). The most literal rendering is the Spirit of the Father since theres no need to elevate the genitive article to the position of a pronoun (Greek has an entirely separate word for the pronoun your). Do these complimentary passages naturally lend themselves to the notion that Jesus viewed the Father and the Holy Spirit as separate divine persons apart from one another Of course not, and Jesus view of the Godhead should be our view. Again, White puts his ignorance of Oneness theology on full display hereand then berates Marcus Rogers for not understanding the doctrine of the Trinity Such scholastic hypocrisy is classic James White however. And as affirmed above, Oneness believers do not confess sequential Modalsim . but rather simultaneous manifestations of the one divine person of God. Not only is this perspective the biblical presentation of God-proper, it equally preserves the radical monotheism of the Bible as well as evades the fatal blow of conceptual polytheism. (White): We are all monotheists, well, except for Mormons. Actually, as noted before, Trinitarian apologists like White (also Edward Dalcour) sound much like Mormon apologists in their argumentation methodology relative to this topic. As mentioned above, in our 2011 debate in Australia White openly confessed that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit consisted of three divine individuals, each with their own separate centers of consciousness apart from the other two divine individuals (see the cross exam portion of this debate). Further, Trinitarians often appeal to passages such as Daniel 7 and Revelation 5 which speaks of the Son of Man and the Lamb respectivelywhom Trinitarians interpret to be God the Sonapproaching God the Father in a separate body. Trinitarians are equally fond of appealing to Genesis 19.24, the baptism of Christ, the prayers of Christ, etc. all of which would teach a radical bodily separation within the Godhead if not interpreted within the confines of the rigid-strict monotheism commanded in the biblical data. Assimilating these open confessions into a harmonious blend, Trinitarian apologists teach separate divine individuals . each with independent thought processing and bodily separation. To claim that such a theological conclusion is biblical monotheism is tantamount to someone holding up an orange and stubbornly identifying it an apple despite how many times the obvious is pointed out. Whites confessions above serve as an excellent example of the difference between conceptual tritheism and confessional tritheism. That is, Trinitarians like White will never openly confess tritheism, yet the concepts expressed through their confessions make it crystal clear that they hold to conceptual tritheism. (White): Marcus Rogers, are you willing to learn and find out what we really believe This is vintage James White. Despite his open confession to worshiping multiple divine individuals with separate centers of consciousness, White still fancies himself as the teacher and everyone else the learner (a natural outgrowth of Calvinism)and does not even seem to blush. Worse, White clearly does not grasp even the basic Oneness Pentecostal confessions relative to the Godhead. That is, White attacks something we dont even believe and then expects us to learn from him. We think not. The Son is God enfleshed and is hence divine. This is the Oneness Pentecostal confession of the Son of God. (White): The earliest church records teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite to the contrary, since White is fond of continuing to identify modern Oneness believers as the equivalent to ancient Sabellians and Modalists, perhaps hell also accept the testimony of Tertullian ca. 213 A. D. regarding the same: The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers . are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world8217s plurality of gods to the one only true God ( Adversus Praxean . Chp. 3). Tertullian here identifies those often classified as ancient Oneness believers (though again, there are vast differences) as the majority of believers in the early third century. Similarly, one can read the writings of both Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 230 A. D.) and Origen of Alexandria (ca. 250 A. D.) to see where they refer to those who share commonality with contemporary Oneness believers as the general run of Christians, great multitude of believers, scholars, (their doctrine) has prevailed, etc. Quite opposite to Whites claim above, the earliest church records though not identicalaffirm a theology similar in form to modern Oneness doctrine. Contrary, the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully codified until ca. 381 A. D. at the Council of Constantinople. This is almost 300 years after the Apostle John diedhardly the earliest church records. Acclaimed historian and professor R. P.C. Hanson notes, 8220With the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355 subordinationism might indeed, until the denouncement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy (R. P.C. Hanson 1988 The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 . p. xix). Moreover, the theology of virtually none of the earliest writers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, or Tertullian would be considered uniform to present-day Trinitarianism. As Hanson notes above, early apologists are often classified as ontological (contra economic) subordinationists and would be deemed heretical by contemporary Trinitarian apologists (as would modern-day scholars such as Drs. Adam Clarke, Walter Martin, etc.). Many of the earliest church records such as the Shepherd of Hermas identify the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ. Hence, Oneness teachings concerning the Holy Spirit are identical with the first century church in Rome (especially considering that this church was planted in Acts 10). The Shepherd of Hermas reveals that Clement was the Bishop of Rome while Hermas was a prophet during the first century. If the same Hermas, he is listed in Romans 16.14 and Clement in Philippians 4.3. When we consider that both Clement and Hermas of Rome knew Paul, it makes great sense to pay attention to their corroborative teachings on the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ. Finally, as even a cursory glance of The Ante Nicene Fathers will reveal, virtually all of the earliest church records affirm the salvific necessity for water baptism and a clear rejection of the Reformed dogma of unconditional eternal security (and rightfully so). Trinitarian academics often treat the Early Church Fathers (ECF) like cab ridesget on board where they wish and jump out where they wish (White): I know that some liberals say that Ignatius was a Modalist, but he (Ignatius) clearly distinguished between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well as affirming the deity of Christ. At the risk of sounding redundant at this point, White again simply assumes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit distinctions demand separate, co-equal, co-eternal, divine individuals when this is nothing more than his assertion devoid of concrete evidence. Oneness believers equally make a distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spiritas well as affirming the divinity of Christ. What we openly and gladly deny is a relegation of Christ from His rightful exalted position as the One God of the biblical data (I John 5.20 Colossians 2.8-10) to a mere 8220one of three divine co-equal members of the Godhead.8221 And, typical White, he classifies virtually any Trinitarian scholar who disagrees with him as a liberal. The cold-hard facts are that Ignatius clearly wrote in non-Trinitarian categories. In his Epistle to the Ephesians chapter 7 he refers to Jesus as the one physician and God existing in the flesh. 7:2 There is one only physician . of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man . true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord. Ignatius repeatedly identifies Christ as simply our God with no mention of divine persons or any other Trinitarian language. In his Epistle to the Magnesians he refers to the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ. And, in Magnesians 8.2 Ignatius clearly says, On this account were they also persecuted, who by his grace were inspired, to the end that the disobedient might be fully persuaded that there is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ . his Son, who is his eternal Word, who came not forth from Silence, who in all things was well pleasing to him that sent him. Does this honestly sound like Ignatius viewed the Son of God as one of three separate divine individuals8221 Of course not. It is for these reasons that numerous Trinitarian academicswith far more credentials than Whitehave labeled Ignatius as an ancient Oneness believer or a supposed Monarchian Modalist (e. g. W. R. Schoedel). Of particular note is renowned ancient comparative religion expert Dr. Virginia Corwin. Professor Corwin literally traveled the world studying ancient Eastern religion. Her dissertation, 8221 St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch,8221 published by Yale Press in 1960, is still considered by many academics to be the defining work on Ignatius. Her expert diagnosis and conclusion of the theology of Ignatius If one term must be chosen to indicate the tendency of his thought, Ignatius must be said to be Monarchian . though he is very close to the point later declared to be orthodox (Corwin, Virginia. St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960). Similarly, as referenced above, historian William R. Schoedel, author of Ignatius of Antioch (Heremeneia: A Critical amp Historical Commentary of the Bible) has affirmed that Ignatius of Antioch was most closely alloyed with ancient Modalists. Though late, its nonetheless interesting that Archbishop Wake translated Vossius8217 1646 Greek text of Ignatiuss Magnesians 6 in an obvious Oneness fashion: 8220Jesus Christ, who was the Father before all ages . and appeared in the end to us.8221 ( The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden . p. 173). I have little doubt that Trinitarians will deride the lateness of this rendering, yet if they had a translation of Ignatius like this they would be salivating at the mouth For good measure, see here the quote of respected historian and theologian Edward Fudge: 8220 Ignatius sometimes speaks of Christ in a way that borders on Sabellianism and patripassianism. At other times he clearly distinguishes between the Father and the Son.8221 (cf. Edward Fudge, M. A. The Eschatology of Ignatius of Antioch: Christocentri and Historical Journal of the Evangelical and Theological Society JETS 15:4 Fall 1972 ed. p. 233.) Where are all of these Ancient Religion scholars deriving this conclusionand that both in collaboration with and independent of one another Clearly, Ignatius was not a Trinitarian8221 despite how loudly White and other agenda-driven Trinitarians protest to the contrary. In sum, the earliest church records (which are quite scant and spurious at best) advise us nothing regarding a Trinity of divine individuals. As those who spent their life intently traveling the ancient Eastern lands and researching ancient documentation inform us that, if anything, the earliest church records affirm a doctrinal posture similar to the modern Oneness position. Below we list numerous direct quotations from honest Trinitarians who themselves concede that their doctrine is found nowhere in the Bible: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that Trinity is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement (1988, Vol. 4, Trinity, p. 914). It further states that church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centurieslong after the apostles had passed from the scene. The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT New Testament (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, Trinity). The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism states: Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT Old Testament or the NT New Testament . . . It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there. Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, God, pp. 564-565). The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its article on the Trinity, explains: Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons (1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928). The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis points out that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, God, p. 84). Historian and noted author H. G. Wells, in his popular work entitled The Outline of History, points out, There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinityat any rate from him (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499). Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, It is indeed true that the name Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon i. e. actual Scripture (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, Trinity, p. 782). Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text , if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that clearly states that there is one God who exists in three persons (1999, p. 89). Ryrie continues: The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results. If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity (p. 90). Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture , yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church. In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble ( God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995, p. 12). Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity doctrine is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold of Greek concepts. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God (p. 20). Professor Erickson later points out: It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible . If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianitys uniqueness. how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation. For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly. Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion (pp. 108-109). Shirley Guthrie, Jr. professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity . Neither the word trinity itself nor such language as one-in-three, three-in-one, one essence (or substance), and three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy ( Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77). White and his cohorts can claim that the Trinity doctrine is 8220clear8221 in the Scriptures until doomsday. Not only is it not 8220clear8221 8211 it is not even taught 8211 as the quotations from honest Trinitarian academics (again, with far more credentials than White) concede above. Finally, the admonition of the Apostle Paul seems applicable here: Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily and you are complete in Him . who is the head of all principality and power (Colossians 2.8-10 NKJV). God bless and thank you for reading In 1992 Dr. Gregory Boyd put out his inflammatory work entitled 8220Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity.8221 In this book he charges, 8220 neither the early church, nor the church throughout the ages, has ever held to the very eccentric notion that a woman should never cut her hair .8221 Not only is this entirely false, (e. g. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, et. al.). but more importantly, apparently Dr. Boyd (also an Open Theist ) does not consider the book of I Corinthians a part of 8220the early church.8221 Below are a few (i) grammatical, (ii) historical and (iii) theological considerations that keep drifting through my mind. 8221If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again8221 (I Cor. 11.6 NIV Footnote). 8221And since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, then she should have long hair8221 (I Cor. 11.6 NLTFootnote). Todays English Version . I Cor. 11.5-6: And any woman who prays or speaks Gods message in public worship with nothing on her head disgraces her husband there is no difference between her and a woman whose head has been shaved. If the woman does not cover her head, s he might as well cut her hair . And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair . she should cover her head. Social scientists Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey: It is impossible to overestimate the importance of honor and shame in the socialization of males and females in the ancient Mediterranean world..To know the gender of someone was already to know a whole set of norms to which they must conform if they were to be honorable in that society. Such expectations formed clear cultural norms about what clothes (Deut. 22:5), hairdos (1 Cor. 11:4-14), and sexual partners (Rom. 1:26-27) are appropriate to males and females. (Drs. Bruce Malina and Robert Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality , p. 182.) I once asked a Trinitarian apologist about these passages, to which he responded, 8220Well, the idea is that this was a cultural notion limited to the Corinthians based upon temple prostitution.8221 I responded by pointing him to Pauline usage of 8220nature8221 and the fact that I Cor. 11 was addressed to 82208230 all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord82308221 (I Cor. 1.2). Indeed, Paul8217s universal salutation effectively undercuts the 8220cultural8221 card, silencing those seeking to nullify these passages. Incidentally, if the first portion of I Cor. 11 is relegated to merely 8220cultural8221 status, what prohibits the latter section of the same chapter dealing with the Lord8217s Supper from being demoted to the same Using identical logic, we should now equally stop observing the Lord8217s Supper The Greek verb translated as 8220shorn8221 () appears in the middle voice indicating that the action is performed uponor with reference tothe subject. Here8217s what some of the most authoritative lexicographers in existence state about this specific term: 8220 Mid. voice cut one8217s hair or have one8217s hair cut 8230Abs(olute sense)8230I Cor. 11:6a, b 8221 (Bauer8217s Greek-English Lexicon 2nd ed. p. 427 BDAG affirms the same thing). 8220 To have one8217s hair cut 8221 (Dr. F. W. Gingrich8217s, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament . p. 114). Analytical Greek NT Lexicon: 8220middle cut one8217s hair . have one8217s hair cut off (1 C 11.6) .8221 Louw amp Nida8217s Greek-English Lexicon Based upon Semantic Domain . 19.23 8220 to cut the hair of a person or animal - to cut hair . to shear. if the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair 1CO. 11.68243 For these grammatical reasons, many linguists have translated this verb as 8220cut off,8221 or simply 8220to cut8221 (e. g. RSV, NEB, Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, NAB, NIV, Amplified Bible, James Moffatt). Additionally, on p. 245 of the United Bible Societies A Translators Handbook on Pauls First Letter to the Corinthians . we read: To be shorn, literally cut-her-hair in Greek, probably referred to a regular trimming of her hair. This is the lexical definition of the verb translated shorn and hence is the very thing the Holy Spirit is prohibiting through the writings of the Apostle Paul. Regarding the adjective translated shame (or) disgrace (v. 6), see here BAGD, p. 25: it is disgracefulfor a woman to cut her hair. Thayers p. 17: disgrace, dishonorable. Louw amp Nida: 8220since it is shameful for a woman to shave or cut her hair . she should cover her head 1CO. 11:6.8221 This is the same GK. word () employed in Eph. 5.12 of, things in secret are shameful even to mention8221 and Titus 1.10-11 of certain Jews who were ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach for the sake of dishonest gain (NIV). This is a very strong Greek adjective always denoting a forceful offense. In this vein, as it relates to the verb 8220longkomao (2863)8221 in v. 15, 8220if a woman has long hair,8221 lexicographers affirm: 8220In a number of languages it may be necessary to translate komaolong as 8216to let one8217s hair grow long8217 or 8216 not to cut one8217s hair 8216 8221 (Drs. Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain . UBS). The idea here is that if the receptor language does not have a word for uncut hair, the translator should communicate this idea by his choice of words. (See Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains , 8.14, 11.15.) Bauer8217s Greek-English Lexicon: 8220let one8217s hair grow long8230I Cor. 11:14, 158221 (p. 442). The following quotes were accessed from Bro. Jason Weatherly8217s blog: theweatherlyreport. blogspot 1. I posed the following question to Janet Downie, Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: In Classical Greek, is it possible to understand the participle komontes as referring to 8220uncut hair8221 Response: The participle komaonteskomoontes ( from the noun hair) does mean having abundant hair, with a full head of hair so that implies uncut. Homeric warriors and later Greeks seem to have worn their hair long. 2. I proposed the following question to the bloggers third language expert: So, my question is 8211 is it possible that akersekomes and koma are used synonymously in Classical Greek Is it possible that the context of Classical Greek indicates that koma indicated long hair that was not (yet) cut Dr. David Leitao, Professor of Classics, San Francisco University responded with: Yes, in some contexts, akersokomes and kom(oa)on (the participle form of komao ) could be synonyms. It8217s not quite true that boys left their hair to grow uncut until adulthood. That was the custom in some areas and at some times, but far from universal. The word akersokomes was probably used mostly commonly of Apollo, a special case. And there8217s the case of the Achaeans in the Iliad (and the Spartans of later years), who were described as komoontes (wearing the hair long, i. e. uncut). Espero que isto ajude. 3. I sent the following question to Professor Mark Griffith, Professor of Classics, Berkley University: In Classical Greek, is it possible to understand the participle komontes as referring to 8220uncut hair8221 Professor Griffith answered: Yes, that would be a natural meaning for that word. Translators of the Iliad, for example, often render the formula KARA KOMONTES ACHAIOI as the long-haired Achaeans There are various theories as to why this epithet was applied to the Bronze Age or Archaic Achaeans. As you probably know, in some societies young men did not cut their hair until reaching a certain age, as part of an adolescent rite of passage. But of course not all the Achaeans in Homer8217s poem are adolescents, by any means. In the Classical period in Athens (5th C. BCE or so), the style of growing one8217s hair long and luxurious (KOMO or in Attic Greek KOMA) was regarded as rather an aristocratic (andor Spartan) habit. 4. I posed the question to Professor Anthony Kaldellis one of the Professors in this department: In Classical Greek, is it possible to understand the participle komontes as referring to 8220uncut hair8221 Professor Kaldellis answer was: If its from koma, sure, but more like letting the hair grow long rather than not cutting it, same thing in the end. In other words letting the hair grow long is the same thing in the end as uncut hair, which is what we affirm. (End quotes from Bro. Jason Weatherly8217s blog) CEV: A woman should wear something on her head. It is a disgrace for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair (I Cor. 11.6). As it relates to the wearing of a literal veil, v. 15 could not be clearer: 8220Her hair is given her for anti a covering.8221 The Greek preposition translated 8220for8221 is anti . where we get the English prefix 8220anti 8211 8221 and is defined as 8220instead of8221 or 8220against.8221 The most straightforward rendering would be (and often is), 8220her hair is given her instead of a veil.8221 Paul further explained that even the nature of things teaches us on this matter. How so First, nature teaches that there should be a visible distinction between male and female. Second, in almost all cultures, men have worn short hair in comparison to women. Third, men are ten times more likely to go bald than women. It is natural for a man not to have any hair but unnatural for a woman not to have hair. In addition, the Old Testament indicates that it is shameful for a woman to cut or lose her hair (Isaiah 3.17, 24 Jeremiah 7.29). From a historical perspective, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Vol. 5, p. 18, informs us: 8220 Women never cut their hair (cf. Jer. vii. 29), and long hair was their greatest ornament (Cant. iv. 1 cf. I Cor. xi 15 Cant. vii. 5).8221 The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 158, 8220Hair8221: 8220 A woman8217s hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation.8221 Remember, Jesus endorsed the Jewish concept(s) of God to the woman at the well (Jn. 4) and Paul affirmed that to the Jews were written, 8220the oracles of God8221 (Rom.). The World of Ancient Israel, pg. 84, 8220When a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery, her hair was cut or her head shaved.8221 I have a myriad of additional quotes from historians who reference the Sioux8217s practice of scalping the hair of the head as the emblem of losing one8217s power and authority. Adolf Hitler had all the womens hair shaved upon their arrival at concentration camps during WW II. At the liberation of Auschwitz, Jan. 1945, there was 7 tons of hair found in the camps warehouse (See Teresa Swiebockas, Auschwitz: A History in Photographs p. 25). From a theological perspective, a woman8217s hair is said to be a 8220covering,8221 and v. 7 specifies precisely what her hair is covering: 8220For a man ought not to cover his head covered . since he is the image and glory of God but (i. e. in contrast to this) the woman is the glory of man 8221 (NET). That is, man8217s hair is to be short 8220since he is the8230glory of God,8221 but, in contrast to thissince woman is 8220the glory of manshe should have long-uncut hair to 8220cover8221 man8217s glory. My mind races to another 8220covering of Glory8221 in the tabernacle of Moses, namely the mercy seat. Hannah lamented when the Ark of the Covenant was taken that 8220the glory of the LORD has departed.8221 To the Hebrew mind, this is what the Ark represented as is well documented throughout Scripture. Curiously, it was on this 8220covering8221 that Yahveh had Cherubim positioned as if 8220looking into.8221 Interestingly, Paul explicitly ties in the notion that 8220because of the Angels8221 (I Cor. 11.10) women are to have this 8220covering8221 of uncut hair. No matter what interpretation one takes, just as angels were monitoring the OT covering of Glory, so angels are monitoring the NT 8220covering8221 of 8220glory. Consider for a moment what would have happened if Moses would have 8220shortened8221 the 8220covering8221 of the 8220glory8221 Sadly, this is the equivalent of what many in Pentecost and Dr. Boyd are advocating What does 8220long hair8221 mean We will define it in two ways: (i) The literal definition of the word itself (which should be sufficient standing alone) (ii) Its usage else were in Scripture. Long Hair: First, as we8217ve seen above, the Greek term translated 8220long hair8221 is koma and is defined as, 8220to allow the hair to grow.8221 If one cuts their hair they are not allowing it to grow, particularly since the hair grows from the root and not the ends. And, if a man has 8220long hair8221 it is a shame to him (1 Corinthians 11.14) that is, if a man has long and uncut hair. Long hair on a man is equally uncut hair therefore long hair on a woman would coequally be uncut hair. Uncut hair is a shame to a man and a glory to a woman. Or, as Dr. John Gill states, 8220But if a woman have long hair8230.And wears it, without cutting it . as men do.8221 The following quotation is extrapolated from Dr. Daniel Segraves, Hair Length in the Bible WAP, 1989 (pp. 4345): A question generally arises at this point: How long must ones hair be to fit the biblical definition of long The answer centers on the meaning of the Greek words Koma and Kome . Koma is translated have long hair both in vv. 14 and 15. According to Gingrichs lexicon, this Greek verb means, to wear long hair, let ones hair grow long. Thayers Greek-English Lexicon renders it to let the hair grow, have long hair. Obviously, someone cannot allow hair to grow and cut it at the same time, particularly since the hair grows from the root amp not the ends. Kome8221 is the Greek noun translated hair in the phrase for her hair is given her for a covering (v. 15). The passages cited by Bauers Lexicon and Moulton and Miligans Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament indicate that kome refers to uncut hair. The passages cited by these works in which this noun occurs in Greek literature demand the meaning of uncut hair. The same Greek word, kome, is also used in the LXX to describe the Nazarite, who were forbidden to cut their hair. Dr. Spiros Zodhaites: komo contracted komo, fut. komeso, from kme (G2864), hair. To have long hair (1Co11:14-15). Paul teaches that a woman8217s hair ought to be different from a man8217s, and that a woman8217s hair is equivalent to a periblaion (G4018), something that is wrapped around, a veil or mantle . From the context, it seems that the woman8217s hair ought to be distinct from a man8217s hair, not only in length, but also in ornamentation . Secondly, the way long hair is used elsewhere in Scripture would seem to demand the idea of uncut, or not trimmed. 8221They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long they shall surely trim the hair of their heads.8221 Ezekiel 44.20 In this verse it is clear that trimming the hair would prevent it from being long. Long hair is untrimmed hair. This is not the only verse that indicates this: 8221All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long8221 (Numbers 6.5 ESV). The command to the one under the Nazarite Vow is: 8220He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.8221 This is set in contrast to, 8220no razor shall touch his head.8221 Clearly the Nazarite vow prohibited any cutting of the hair. Again, Dr. John Gill: 8220he might not shave his beard, nor cut off his locks, and shave his head, nor cut short his locks with a pair of scissors, nor any with anything by which the hair may be removed , as Ben Gersom nor pluck off his hair with his hands, as Maimonides says (x) but let it grow as long as it would during the time of his separation.8221 As mentioned above, some have argued that I Corinthians 11 merely applies to first-century Corinthian culture and so can be disregarded today. However, v. 16 states that none of the 8220churches of God8221 had any other custom than what Paul had just taught. At that time, there were Jewish, Greek, Roman, and various Asian churches. Despite their many cultures, they all agreed on this practice. Finally , Revelation 9.8 describes a demonic army as having hair as the hair of women. There is no biological difference between the hair of men and of women. The difference is the length it is allowed to grow. This fact was so evident in the late first-century churches that John 8211 writing ca. thirty years after Paul 8211 knew all his readers would understand his description. Let us hold fast to the written word of God in the face of religious tradition While doing some reading on-line I noticed a post from Dr. James White regarding the controversy surrounding Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has refused to issue gay 8220marriage8221 licenses. And, since White mentioned me specifically, I decided to respond. Below I have copied White8217s typical misrepresentations of Oneness believers (even though he8217s been repeatedly informed otherwise) in red with my categorical responses in blue (as here) immediately following. For corroboration of White8217s post, see H ERE . Enjoy Just a few hours ago, though, I read a tweet, replete with links, showing that Kim Davis attends an Apostolic (Oneness) church8212i. e. a non-Trinitarian church8212no, more specifically, an anti-Trinitarian church. OK, well, nothing like throwing a curve ball at the situation. I made very brief mention of this (not really commenting at all) on Twitter, and it has exploded with a number of, well, odd-ball comments (again showing that those who follow me on Twitter are an, uh, eclectic group). In any case, many have asked, 8220So what8221 Well, good question. Constitutionally it doesn8217t mean a thing, obviously. It doesn8217t really impact the issue of whether the local magistrate should support and engage in promoting a clearly unjust, absurd and in fact evil governmental policy (the SC decision isn8217t a law8212it just absurdly says the Constitution does not allow all the laws that currently exist). What it does impact is how we relate to Kim Davis herself. And for a large number of folks8212the majority of evangelicals I would assume8212it really doesn8217t matter. I mean, if she was one of Jehovah8217s Witnesses, yeah, that might matter. A Mormon Well, maybe a bit less, but still problematic for many. But a Oneness Pentecostal Here White poisons the well as he seeks to link Oneness Pentecostal believers with clearly aberrant groups such as JW8217s (who openly deny that Jesus Christ is the supreme God) and Mormons (who openly confess Polytheism). Ironically, Oneness believers could just as easily link Trinitarianism with these groups inasmuch as, along with JW8217s, Trinitarians deny Jesus Christ as the single-supreme God of the Bible contra I John 5.20, Colossians 2.8-10, John 14.8-10, etc. And, along with Mormonism, Trinitarians equally confess more than one identified as 8220God.8221 In fact, in our debate in Australia Dr. White openly 8220affirmed8221 multiple 8220 separate centers of consciousness within God 8221 8211 the very definition of Polytheism (see the cross-exam portion of this debate). There are also other clear similarities between Mormonism and Trinitarianism that we could point to. Hence, Oneness believers can just as easily make these same links, which does nothing at all to foster mutual understanding between opposing camps. Well, as I mentioned to Michael Michael L Brown on the DL last week, I think the majority of people attending 8220evangelical8221 churches in the US would test 8220modalist8221 on any meaningful test of their knowledge of the Trinity. First, Oneness believers are not 8220Modalists8221 and Trinitarians have been told this ad nauseum. The ancient Modalists confessed three sequential 8220modes8221 of God8217s existence. That is, ancient 8220modalists8221 believed that the Father became the Son of God while He ceased being the Father. The Son of God then became the Holy Spirit while He ceased being the Son of God. Modern Oneness believers do not accept this theological error. Oneness believers confess three simultaneous and distinct manifestations of the one-single God8217s existence (e. g. I Timothy 3.16, John 1.1-14)8230big difference. Again, Trinitarians like White have been told this repeatedly, yet they continue to openly misrepresent our beliefs (i. e. straw-man attack). Further, if 8220the majority of people8221 attending Trinitarian churches have a Oneness understanding of God, then apparently Dr. White views the 8220majority of people8221 sitting on Trinitarian churches as lost () And, isn8217t it strange that 8220the majority of people8221 reading the Scriptures would all independently conclude the Oneness identity of God Why Obviously this an indirect concession that the Oneness position is the natural deduction of the straight-forward reading of the Bible by 8220the majority of the people8221 (and only serves to advance the Oneness posture). Since that is the case, why should they think Davis8217 Oneness position would be relevant, when they don8217t think the matter is worthy of enough attention for their own personal orthodoxy If most people who call themselves Christians are so lacadaisical as to spend more time mastering the complicated instructions for the most recent first person shooter video game than to come to understand the hypostatic union and the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why should they care if Kim Davis goes to a church that takes a minority view on the same topics Here White seeks to pit the Oneness position as an outer-fringe belief-system, when the reality is there are millions and millions of Oneness believers worldwide (see Dr. Talmadge French8217s voluminous work, 8220 Our God is One 8221 found HERE ). In fact, above White concedes that 8220the majority8221 of Trinitarians have a Oneness understanding of the Godhead8230not such a 8220minority view8221 now is it Apparently White has never read that 8220few8221 would 8220find8221 true biblical salvation (Matthew 7.14). Not to mention how such logic commits the Argumentum Ad Populum (formal logical) Fallacy 8211 something I would think that an experienced, professional apologist would know better than to practice (). Well, I get all that, to be sure. And if we dare say, 8220 Hmm, well, this surely impacts how we should pray for this woman, since her foundation for doing what she is doing is seriously flawed ,8221 we will get BLASTED by many who will find us 8220doctrinaire8221 and 8220narrow8221 and 8220unloving8221 and fill-in-the-blank. Ironically, it is White8217s quirky notion of a God who supposedly exists as, 8220 three divine individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness apart from the other two divine individuals 8221 (White8217s own confession during our debate) that is 8220seriously flawed8221 8211 to put it mildly. But the reality is that modalism has never produced an orthodox representation of the gospel8212not in the early church, and not today. It can8217t, since the gospel is inherently Trinitarian to its core. Again, Oneness believers are not 8220Modalists8221 in the sense that White erroneously charges. Further, Oneness believers openly and gladly renounce White8217s supposed 8220orthodox representation of the gospel8221 found within his clearly Tritheistic confession of 8220multiple-eternal-divine-centers-of-consciousness8221 canard. If such a theological construct be considered 8220orthodox,8221 then sign us Oneness believers up as 8220unorthodox8221 Moreover, the 8220Gospel8221 is biblically defined as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God enfleshed (i. e. I Corinthians 15), with absolutely nothing ever stated in Scripture regarding 8220inherent Trinitarian(ism).8221 This is purely White8217s anti-biblical religious tradition found nowhere in the inspired writings of Scripture. The 8220Gospel8221 message is that God loved humanity so much that He Himself became a Man for the redemption of a lost humanity (not just 8220the elect8221). Contrary to the biblical message of the Gospel, Trinitarianism teaches that the supposed 8220first divine individual8221 in the Godhead loved humanity so much that He ordered the supposed 8220second divine individual8221 to be beat, spit upon, openly humiliated and ultimately crucified8230while He remained in the bliss of Heaven. At this point Trinitarians appeal to the supposed 8220volunteering8221 of the Son of God in the 8220Eternal Covenant of Redemption8221 8211 again, both of which are entirely anti-biblical traditions. Indeed, I find it amusing how White is constantly chiding the RCC for their unbiblical 8220traditions,8221 when he and the supposed 8220Reform8221 movement have just as many unbiblical religious 8220traditions8221 as the Pope (e. g. 8220T. U.L. I.P.8221) You can8217t talk about the Son interceding for His people, for example, in any meaningful fashion when the Son is merely the human nature that came into being at Bethlehem. There are other issues (see my debates on line with Dr. Sabin and with Roger Perkins for details) as well. First, Oneness believers do not confess that the Son of God is merely the 8220human nature8221 of Christ that 8220came into being at Bethlehem.8221 However, if White includes the humanity of Christ in the Sonship, then White equally believes that there8217s a sense in which God8217s Son 8220came into being at Bethlehem.8221 That is, unless White wishes to join hands with some of the cult-groups he mentions above by affirming that Christ was a 8220pre-existent man8221 Contrary to White8217s charge, Oneness believers accept the biblical identification of the Son of God as the one-single God of the OT incarnate (Matthew 1.23, I Timothy 3.16, John 1.1-14) 8211 but He is absolutely not the 8220second of three eternal divine individuals in the Trinity.8221 Jesus Christ is the one YHVH of the Bible enfleshed 8211 period. Further, nor can White speak of biblical monotheism 8220 in any meaningful fashion 8221 if 8220God the Son8221 is so radically separated from 8220God the Father8221 that each divine person can pray to one another in Heaven, which, obviously, would connote bodily separation within the Godhead 8211 contrary to Colossians 2.9 (and a whole passel of other Scriptures). Yes, by all means, please see my debate with Dr. White on my 8220Debates8221 tab above and listen to him unashamedly tell the world that he worships a God who exists with multiple, 8220separate centers of consciousness.8221 And, yes, there are indeed 8220other (soteriological) issues8221 that Oneness believers would reject as anti-biblical within Trinitarianism, and we stand ready to provide a biblical defense of these doctrines. I have received innumerable contacts from all over the world regarding the debate with White and, by God8217s grace, even led some out of Trinitarianism into biblical Christianity. To God the Glory I am still uncertain about the proper way of juggling all the issues we are facing in this matter. I am uncomfortable with some of the simplistic cheer-leading approaches I have seen thus far. But surely this information regarding her understanding of the gospel and the Godhead (or lack thereof) is important to any Christian analysis of the developing situation. As we have seen above, it is White8217s fanciful notion of a God who has supposedly eternally existed with multiple, independent minds 8211 that not one Bible writer was inspired by the Holy Spirit to mention 8211 that constitutes the 8220lack of (biblical) understanding.8221 White is fond of labeling Oneness believers as 8220heretics8221 (he thinks this keeps him in the 8220stream of the Reformation8221), and yet the overwhelmingly vast majority of Trinitarians I have spoken with adamantly disagree with his 8220separate-divine-centers-of-consciousness8221 heterodoxy (of course, always masquerading as 8220orthodoxy8221). Thus, ironically, White8217s own confession has placed him outside of the majority of his fellow Trinitarians. Though we Oneness believers certainly do not glory in this 8211 it is White and the supposed 8220Reform8221 movement that represent the abandonment of biblical Christianity (i. e. Heresy ). However, w e will continue sincerely praying that God would deliver the Trinitarian world from their religious traditions into biblical salvation via Acts 2.38-Mark 12.29, etc. Indeed, the lack of understanding clearly does not stem from Oneness believers who affirm that the God who identified Himself with no less than 9,000 single-person-pronouns can be taken at His word. Moreover, we will continue to evangelize the Trinitarian community out of this theological error that so openly militates against the biblical presentation of God8217s identity and status. Simply put, God is 8211 and will always be 8211 unequivocally-uncompromisingly One (Galatians 3.20, The Amplified Bible ). (By the way, Dan Phillips tweeted relevant links regarding Kim Davis8217 church: tl. gdn1snd3cq ) There were no theological assertions to be addressed in Phillips8217 links. Thank you for reading Recently I was sent several Instagram posts of excerpts from Eldon Epp8217s book touting Junia(s) of Romans 16.7 as supposedly 8220 The First Woman Apostle .8221 In Epp8217s work, he claims that those who reject Junia(s) as an 8220apostle8221 are guilty of 8220gender bias8221 which has purportedly been 8220exposed8221 and 8220overcome8221 in recent years. Obviously this charge is dead on arrival inasmuch as those who object to the anti-biblical notion that Junia(s) was a female 8220apostle8221 are merely allowing the inspired biblical data to inform our dogma (i. e. exegesis ) contra importing our personal preferences into the inspired text (i. e. eisegesis ) a text that never states the same. Indeed, the 8220gender bias8221 would be from anyone somehow opting to place females in a position clearly prohibited in God8217s word. Simply put, said individuals place a green light where God has clearly placed a red light and then somehow claim that such a position is 8220biblical.8221 To illustrate, Epp states that 8220 Paul did not insist on women keeping silent in the churches .8221 And, certainly there is a specific context and exegesis to Paul8217s statement in I Corinthians 14.34 one that we have analyzed at length (assuming this is the passage the author is referencing). However, I would stop short of woodenly stating that 8220 Paul did not insist on women keeping silent in the church 8221 inasmuch as this is the diametrical opposite of what Paul clearly states below: New International Version Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. New Living Translation Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. English Standard Version the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. Berean Study Bible women should be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law says. Berean Literal Bible let the women be silent in the churches. For it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in submission, as the Law also says. New American Standard Bible The women are to keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. King James Bible Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Holman Christian Standard Bible The women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says. International Standard Version The women must keep silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak out, but must place themselves in submission, as the oral law also says. NET Bible The women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. Aramaic Bible in Plain English Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for they are not allowed to speak, but to be in subjection, just as The Written Law also says. GOD8217S WORD Translation The women must keep silent. They don8217t have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses8217 Teachings say. New American Standard 1977 Let the women keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. Jubilee Bible 2000 Let your women keep silence in the congregations , for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are commanded to be in subjection, as also saith the law. King James 2000 Bible Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are commanded to be submissive, as also says the law. American King James Version Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted to them to speak but they are commanded to be under obedience as also said the law. American Standard Version Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. Douay-Rheims Bible Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. Darby Bible Translation Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak but to be in subjection, as the law also says. English Revised Version Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. Webster8217s Bible Translation Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted to them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Weymouth New Testament Let married women be silent in the Churches, for they are not permitted to speak. They must be content with a subordinate place, as the Law also says World English Bible Let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak but let them be in subjection, as the law also says. Young8217s Literal Translation Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith It is my understanding that currently another book is being written on the topic of 8220women preachers,8221 which I look forward to both reviewing and critiquing on this blog. For now, below we will delve into the actual exegesis of Romans 16.7, highlighting the role of Junia(s) in these key texts. (Romans 16.7 NET): Greet Andronicus and Junia . my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. Obviously, there is nothing in this text specifically identifying Junia(s) as either (i) a female (ii) an apostle. Such a conclusion is necessarily read into this text not extracted from the text being allowed to stand on its own merit. NA28 Greek text: , , . Primarily, there are two issues at heart in this text: (i) The gender of the noun 8220Junia(s)8221 (ii) Should the Greek adjective translated 8220well known8221 () be understood with the comparative force (i. e. locative) or the elative (i. e. instrumental) tag First, the gender of this individual. Below is hopefully a balanced and fair review of the lexical, exegetical and historical data from the most respected Greek resources available. United Bible Societies (UBS) A Translators Handbook of the New Testament . Adronicus and Junias are not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament they could easily have been husband and wife, or brother and sister. Louw and Nida8217s Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain . 93.178 m: a Jewish Christian greeted in ROM. 16.7 8211 Junias. Friberg8217s Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT . , , (also ) Junias, masculine proper noun (probably RO 16.7 see ). BDAG: , , Junias (not found elsewh. could be a short form of the common Junianus s. B - D - F 125, 2 Rob. 172) according to the rdg. of the N. text a Judean Christian, who was imprisoned w. Paul or shared a similar experience Ro 16:7 s. on . But the accented form has no support as such in the ms. tradition for critique of B - D - R 125, 2, 6 in connection w. the N. rdg. S. UPlisch, NTS 42, 96, 477f, n. 2. For the strong probability that a woman named Junia is meant s. prec. entry. Dr. Bruce Metzger (known as the 8220Dean of Textual Criticism8221), Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (his Magnum Opus): On the basis of the weight of manuscript evidence the Committee was unanimous in rejecting (see also the next variant in ver. 15) in favor of , but was divided as to how the latter should be accented. Some members, considering it unlikely that a woman would be among those styled 8220apostles,8221 understood the name to be masculine (8220Junias), thought to be a shortened form of Junianus (see Bauer-Aland, Wrterbuch, pp. 770 f.). Others, however, were impressed by the facts that (1) the female Latin name Junia occurs more than 250 times in Greek and Latin inscriptions found in Rome alone, whereas the male name Junias is unattested anywhere, and (2) when Greek manuscripts began to be accented, scribes wrote the feminine (Junia). (For recent discussions, see R. R. Schulz in Expository Times, iic (198687), pp. 108110 J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Bible Commentary, 1993), pp. 737 f. and R. S. Cervin in New Testament Studies, xl (1994), pp. 464470.) The A decision of the Committee must be understood as applicable only as to the spelling of the name , not the accentuation. NET Full-Translator-Notes: The feminine name Junia, though common in Latin, is quite rare in Greek (apparently only three instances of it occur in Greek literature outside Rom 16:7, according to the data in the TLG D. Moo, Romans NICNT, 922). The masculine Junias (as a contraction for Junianas), however, is rarer still: Only one instance of the masculine name is known in extant Greek literature (Epiphanius mentions Junias in his Index discipulorum 125). Further, since there are apparently other husband - wife teams mentioned in this salutation (Prisca and Aquila v. 3, Philologus and Julia v. 15), it might be natural to think of Junia as a feminine name. (This ought not be pressed too far, however, for in v. 12 all three individuals are women though the first two are linked together, and in vv. 9-11 all the individuals are men.) In Greek only a difference of accent distinguishes between Junias (male) and Junia (female). The exegetes of the ground-breaking 541 pg. work, Recovering Biblical Manhood amp Womanhood (pp. 79-81), did a complete search of all the Greek writings from Homer (B. C. ninth century) into the fifth century A. D. available now on computer through the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae . which contains 2,889 authors and 8,203 works. They asked the computer for all forms of Iounia so that they could pick up all possible cases. The result of their in-depth search yielded a mere three references other than Romans 16.7. These include Plutarch (ca. A. D. 50 8211 ca.120), Epiphanius (A. D. 315-403), and John Chrysostom (A. D. 347-407). While Plutarch and Chrysostom indicate that Junia(s) indicates a womans name, Epiphanius has the persuasive argument based upon his chosen grammar and first-hand knowledge. Epiphanius was the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus and wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he states: Iounias . of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria ( Index Disciplulorum . 125.19-20). His chosen Greek phrase translated of whom is a masculine relative pronoun ( hou ) and well demonstrates that he thought Iounias was a man. Though debatable, the nod seems to go to Epiphanius inasmuch as Plutarch amp Chrysostom appear to make their deductions based squarely on Rom. 16.7 (they give no other information), whereas Epiphanius seems to have more first-hand information about Junias (i. e. he became bishop of Apameia), and specifically uses the masculine contra the feminine pronoun in describing Junias. Some egalitarians have called into question the quote from Epiphanius since he equally refers to Prisca as a 8220man8221 in the preceding sentence. However, Prisca is nowhere else called a man, whereas Junia(s) is repeatedly called a man in the ancient world. Hence, to reject Epiphanius8217s quote of Junia(s) as a man simply because he has referred to Prisca as a man is a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Indeed, using such logic one could discard the entire witness of Epiphanius. Each assertion must be weighed individually as opposed to merely 8220counting noses.8221 Perhaps even more compelling than Epiphanius, however, is a Latin quotation from Origen (died 252 A. D.), in our earliest extant commentary on Romans. He states that Paul refers to Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow captives (Origens Commentary on Romans, preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus, c. 345-c. 410 A. D. in J. P. Mignes, Patrologia Graeca . vol. 14, col. 1289). The name Junias in Origens quote above is a Latin masculine singular nominative, indicating that one of the ancient worlds most respected scholars considered Junias a man. Coupled with the seemingly first-hand information of Epiphanius, these grammatical and ancient historical references offer compelling evidence toward Junias being a man. Again, some egalitarians have objected to Origen8217s quotation calling Junia(s) a man based upon the paper by Drs. Daniel Wallace and Mike Burer regarding this text which indicates that Origen cite(d) the name once as a masculine and once as feminine.8221 The paper apparently concluded that the masculine form was a later corruption of his text. Ironically, however, Wallace and Burer equally 8220concluded8221 exegetically that Junia(s) was not an apostle in the same paper And, absolutely no viable motive nor evidence have been offered as to why a later scribe would supposedly 8220corrupt8221 Origen8217s writings by inserting the masculine form. The cold facts and raw data has this ancient writer calling Junia(s) a man, and to claim 8220corruption of the text8221 at this point is special pleading. As stated above, using this approach one could claim textual 8220corruption8221 of any doctrine that one seeks to dismiss from ancient writings (and does indeed happen quite often). On the other hand, to be fair, Dr. Daniel Wallace points out, the church fathers: an almost universal sense that this was a womans name surfacesat least through the twelfth century. Nevertheless, this must be couched tentatively because although at least seventeen fathers discuss the issue, the majority of these are Latin fathers (Dr. Dan Wallace, Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification Problem in Romans 16:7). In the same article, Wallace points out: If jIounian should have the circumflex over the ultima (jIounia8217n ) then it is a mans name if it should have the acute accent over the penult ( jIounivan ) then it is a womans name. For help, we need to look in several places. First, we should consider the accents on the Greek manuscripts. This will be of limited value since accents were not added until the ninth century to the NT manuscripts. Thus, their ability to reflect earlier opinions is questionable at best. Nevertheless, they are usually decent indicators as to the opinion in the ninth century. And what they reveal is that jIounian was largely considered a mans name (for the bulk of the MSS have the circumflex over the ultima). Many bloggers have attempted to discredit the quotes by Epiphanius and Origen (in particular, Suzanne McCarthy), all the while most-readily accepting the quotes of Chrysostom and others which refer to this individual as a womanquite telling. Berean Literal Bible: Greet Andronicus and Juni as . my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, and who were in Christ before me. New American Standard Bible: Greet Andronicus and Juni as . my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Masculine names suffixed with the English translation 8220as8221 in the NT are quite common: Andrew (Andre - as . Mt. 10.2), Elijah (Eli - as . Mt. 11.14), Isaiah (Esai - as . Jn. 1.23), Zachari - as (Lk. 1.5). Dr. A. T. Robertson well demonstrates that numerous names suffixed in 8220as8221 are contracted forms for clearly masculine nouns ( Grammar of the Greek New Testament . pp. 171-173). In fact, Robertson is clear on the matter of Junia(s)8217 gender that, This name can be either masculine or feminine in the Greek (WP, Concise Edition, pg. 387). Other clear examples in the NT (among many) include Silas (Acts 15.22) and Silvanus (I Thess. 1.1 I Ptr. 5.12). Bruce K. Waltke, in his voluminous exegetical-canonical work, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), p. 241 states: Al Wolters of Redeemer College (Hamilton, Ontario) in personal communication makes a convincing philological argument that Junia (Gr. Iounia) in Rom. 16:7 is a Jewish name Yehunniah (8216Yah is gracious8217). If so, the name is masculine, not feminine. In sum, there is simply no textual, grammatical, or historical basis to assert that Junia(s) was definitely a female, as Epp adamantly claims in his work. Since we only have these three extra-biblical references in a survey of hundreds of years and literally thousands of ancient literary manuscripts, one could hardly make such an adamant claim of the early Greek-speaking worldfrom neither a Classical or Koine perspective. The grammatical evidence is simply too ambiguous based upon this peculiar accusative form and the weight of a mere accent mark. The fact that Andronicus and Junia(s) are identified as a pair hardly demands a husbandwife team. All one has to do is look five verses later for evidence of this: Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord (v. 12). Meaning of the adjective 8220well known (to the apostles)8221 (): Louw and Nida8217s Greek-English Lexicon Based upon Semantic Domain . 28.31 : pertaining to being well known or outstanding, either because of positive or negative characteristics 8211 outstanding, famous, notorious, infamous. they are outstanding among the apostles ROM 16.7. Friberg8217s Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT . ,. (1) in a positive sense outstanding, well - known (RO 16.7) (2) in a negative sense notorious, infamous, having a bad reputation (MT 27.16). BDAG: , (, sign trag. Hdt. ). 1 of exceptional quality, splendid, prominent, outstanding (Hdt. trag. et al. pap, LXX, EpArist, Philo Joseph.) . a splendid ram fr. the flock MPol 14:1. Of pers. (Diod. S. 5, 83, 1 Jos. Bell. 6, 201 3 Macc 6:1 Just. A II, 12, 5) . outstanding among the apostles Ro 16:7. MPol 19:1. LXX Lexical Dictionary: ,- ,- A 1- 0- 0- 2- 6- 9 Gn 30:42 Est 5:4 8:12 1 Mc 11:37 14:48 marked Gn 30:42 notable, remarkable 3 Mc 6:1 conspicuous 1 Mc 11:37 significant Est 5:4 see . NET Full-Translators-Notes: 16:7 tn. Or 8220prominent, outstanding, famous.8221 The term (episemos) is used either in an implied comparative sense (8220prominent, outstanding8221) or in an elative sense (8220famous, well known8221). The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf. e. g. 3 Macc 6:1 8220Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country8221 cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, ( ) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be 8220well known to the apostles.8221 See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, 8220 Was Junia Really an Apostle A Re - examination of Rom 16.7 ,8221 NTS 47 (2001): 76- 91, who argue for the elative (instrumental) notion. masculine - plural inflection. Interestingly, every noun applying to the NT 5-fold ministry appears in the masculine and never in the feminine gender. Though the doctrinal value of genders can be spurious, when all five ministerial offices appear in the masculine (as does the Greek noun translated 8220elders8221) 8211 this can hardly be coincidental. In fact, the plural Greek noun translated 8220apostles8221 () in Rom. 16.7 appears in the masculine Again, renowned linguist Dr. Daniel Wallace: At issue is whether we should translate the phrase in Romans 16:7 ejpivshmo ejn toi 8216 ajpostovloi as outstanding among the apostles or well known to the apostles. Although almost all translations assume the first rendering, this is by no means a given. Even in a meticulous commentary such as Fitzmyers, though both options are discussed, no evidence is supplied for either. But the evidence is out there mere opinion is inadequate . In order to resolve this issue two items need to be examined. First is the lexical field of the adjective ejpivshmo . Second is the syntactical implication of this adjective in collocation with ejn plus the dative. First, for the lexical issue. 8220 Ejpivshmo 8221 can mean, 8220well known, prominent, outstanding, famous, notable, notorious8221 (BAGD 298 s. v. ejpivshmo LSJ 655-56 LN 28.31 8211 ). The lexical domain can roughly be broken down into two streams: 8220 ejpivshmo 8221 is used either in an implied comparative sense (8220prominent, outstanding among8221) or in an elative sense (8220famous, well known to8221). Second, the key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. Hence, we turn to the 8220 ejn toi8217 ajpostovloi .8221 As a working hypothesis, we would suggest the following: Since a noun in the genitive is typically used with comparative adjectives, we might expect such with an implied comparison. Thus, if in Rom 16:7 Paul meant to say that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding among the apostles, we might have expected him to use the genitive tw8217n ajpostovlwn . On the other hand, if an elative force is suggestedi. e. where no comparison is even hinted atwe might expect ejn the dative (case). As an aside, some commentators reject such an elative sense in this passage because of the collocation with the preposition ejn . but such a view is based on a misperception of the force of the whole construction. On the one hand, there is a legitimate complaint about seeing ejn with the dative as indicating an agent, and to the extent that 8220well known by the apostles8221 implies an action on the apostles part (viz. that the apostles know) such an objection has merit. On the other hand, the idea of something being known by someone else does not necessarily imply agency. This is so for two reasons: First, the action implied may actually be the passive reception of some event or person (thus, texts such as 1 Tim 3:16, in which the line 8220 wfqh ajggevloi8221 can be translated either as, 8220was seen by angels8221 or 8220appeared to angels8221 either way the 8220action8221 performed by angels is by its very nature relatively passive). Such an idea can be easily accommodated in Rom 16:7: 8220well known toby the apostles8221 simply says that the apostles were recipients of information, not that they actively performed 8220knowing.8221 Thus, although ejn plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ejn plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be 8220well known to the apostles.8221 Second, even if ejn with the dative plural is used in the sense of 8220among8221 (so Dr. Moo here, et. al.), this does not necessarily locate Andronicus and Junia within the band of apostles rather, it is just as likely that knowledge of them existed among the apostles . Turning to the actual data, we notice the following. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which 8220 ejpivshmo 8221 is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case. For example, in 3 Macc. 6:1 we read, 8220Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country.8221 Here Eleazar was one of the priests of the country, yet was comparatively outstanding in their midst. The genitive is used for the implied comparison ( tw8217n iJerevwn ). In Ps. Sol. 17:30 the idea is very clear that the Messiah would, 8220glorify the Lord in a prominent place in relation to all the earth.8221 The prominent place is a part of the earth, indicated by the genitive modifier. Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:1 speaks of an, 8220outstanding ram from a great flock.8221 Here 8220from8221 ( ejk ) plus the genitive is used instead of the simple genitive, perhaps to suggest the ablative notion over the partitive, since this ram was chosen for sacrifice (and thus would soon be separated from the flock). But again, the salient features are present: (a) an implied comparison (b) of an item within a larger group, (c) followed by ( ejk plus) the genitive to specify the group to which it belongs. When, however, an elative notion is found, ejn plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Ps. Sol. 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that, 8220they were a spectacle among the gentiles.8221 This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any I have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ejpivshmo , (b) followed by ejn plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. Semantically, what is significant is that, (a) the first group is not a part of the secondthat is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles and (b) what was 8220among8221 the gentiles was the Jews notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting Rom 16:7 should be taken . That the parallels discovered so far conform to our working hypothesis at least gives warrant to seeing Andronicus and Junias fame as that which was among the apostles. Whether the alternative view has semantic plausibility remains to be seen. In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were not apostles, but were known to the apostles. ( Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification Problem in Romans 16:7 . A Study By: Dr. Daniel B. Wallace). New Living Translation: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews, who were in prison with me. They are highly respected among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did. English Standard Version: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles . and they were in Christ before me. Aramaic Bible in Plain English: Invoke the peace of Andronicus and of Junia, my relatives who were captives with me and were known by The Apostles and they were in The Messiah before me. Amplified Bible: Remember me to Andronicus and Junias, my tribal kinsmen and once my fellow prisoners. They are men held in high esteem among the apostles . who also were in Christ before I was. Contemporary English Version: Greet my relatives Andronicus and Junias, who were in jail with me. They are highly respected by the apostles and were followers of Christ before I was. Holman Christian Standard Version: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles . and they were also in Christ before me. Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (Greek-English): Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners they were well known to the apostles . and they also were in Christ before me. Dr. Albert Barnes notes: The word translated of note epismoi . denotes properly those who are marked, designated, or distinguished in any way, used either in a good or bad sense compare Matthew 27:16. Here it is used in a good sense. Among the apostles 8211 This does not mean that they were apostles, as has been sometimes supposed. (1) There is no account of their having been appointed as such. (2) The expression is not one which would have been used if they had been. It would have been who were distinguished apostles compare Romans 1:1 I Corinthians 1:1 II Corinthians 1:1 Philipp. 1:1 . (3) It by no means implies that they were apostles. All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before he was himself converted. They had been converted before he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honored with the friendship of the other apostles. (Dr. Albert Barnes notes on Romans 16.7) Some of the pro 8220women preachers8221 group have stated that Dr. Barnes 8220does not offer any grammatical reasons8221 for his assertions, which is entirely untrue. Barnes specifically points out that the normative grammar used if these individuals would have been apostles would have been 8220who were distinguished apostles.8221 Dr. Barnes then points to other passages as evidence of his grammatical assertion (i. e. Romans 1.1, 1 Corinthians 1.1-2, 2 Corinthians 1.1, Philippians 1.1). Again, to be fair, the scales seem tipped that the noun is feminine, though this is far from certain and may indeed be masculine. As Wallace points out, only an accent mark makes the difference which is quite frustrating inasmuch as Paul would not have used an accent mark originally. However, it is a certainty on an exegetical level that Junia(s) was not the supposed 8220first (nor later) woman apostle8221 (as Epp erroneously titles his work). To assert such simply reveals a prejudiced view 8211 as well as a flawed hermeneutical methodology in the name of personal preference, yet masquerading as grammatical-historical fact (more about this later). Some have pointed to several supposed 8220rebuttals8221 of Drs. Wallace and Burer8217s exegetical paper on this passage entitled 8220 Was Junia Really an Apostle A Re-examination of Rom 16.7 8221 (seen Here ). In particular (and not surprisingly), the works of Eldon Epp, Linda Belleville and Suzanne McCarthy have gained much traction from egalitarians. However, renowned linguists Drs. Daniel Wallace, Mike Burer, Douglas Moo, Wayne Grudem and Thomas Schreiner (and many other exegetes) have offered numerous in-depth surrejoinders to these critique(s). These responses have well demonstrated that the force of Wallace and Burer8217s original exegetical points 8211 as well as those of complimentarians on the whole 8211 remain in-tact. More importantly, these surrejoinders document the grammatical assumptions and errors found in the critiques of Epp, Belleville and McCarthy. In fact, Dr. Burer told me personally that he has written an in-depth response to Epp, et al. which has been approved for publication in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society8217s December issue (see more about Dr. Burer8217s surrejoinder Here ). Indeed, I have numerous emails from some of these professional linguists that speak to these same overall conclusions. More can be read at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood site (e. g. see Here . Here . Here and Here ) . Finally, let me state that I have much more data regarding this claim made by 8220women preacher8221 advocates, but I assume you get the point by now As anyone 8211 allowing the exegetical data to stand on its own merits 8211 can see, there is nothing stated lexically, exegetically, nor intimated in this text specifically indicating that Junia(s) was definitely (i) a woman (ii) an apostle. In fact, the polar opposite is concluded by the world8217s foremost Greek linguists. Thank you for reading and stay tuned for more on this topic Codex Beratinus While recently researching the discovery of early NT Greek manuscripts (MSS), I happened across information that I found particularly interesting. In 2007 renowned grammarian and text-critic Dr. Daniel Wallace and his team traveled to Albania to digitize approximately 13 early MSS that were housed in the national library. Albania had been largely shut-off from the Western word until the demise of communism in March of 1992. Upon arrival and subsequent investigation, Wallace and his team found a total of 45 Greek NT MSSthe second largest cache of NT MSS in the last half-century The most important manuscript discovered was Codex Beratinus 8211 designated as 043 in the Gregory-Aland numbering system 8211 and dates back to the 6 th century. This particular codex enjoys both a long and rich history. During World War II, Hitler had learned of this particular manuscript and ordered his soldiers to destroy the parchmenteven if they had to kill the monks and priests who cared for it since it was housed at the Monastery of Berat. It is now a well-known fact that Hitlers soldiers lined up the monks and priests and inquired as to the manuscript8217s whereabouts 8211 with guns pointed at their heads. To a man, they all deflected the soldiers queries, risking their very lives over this important document. Personally, I find it intriguing that these men would rather meet death than betray this ancient prize (though I certainly do not approve of their dishonest tactics)especially when they already possessed printed Bibles. In the end, the soldiers believed the monks and the parchment survived. It had actually been well-hidden under a pile of stones in the monastery. Today, Codex Beratinus is the number one national treasure of Albania and is housed at the National Archives of Albania. In fact, Austria attempted to purchase the codex some years agoand all offers were met with rejection from the Republic of Albania. Two things about this codex quickly attracted the attention of Wallace and his team: (i) the manuscript was written in an uncial (all capital lettering) hand which alerted them that this was an early parchment. (ii) the codex was dyed purple (i. e. a Royal Codex) with mostly silver writing which told them that the manuscript contained portions of the gospelssince in antiquity scribes universally used purple dye to signify that the gospels were being transmitted. However, (and this is what really got my attention) there were four words that were exclusively written in gold God , Lord , Jesus and Christ indicating that the earliest scribes saw our great God and savior, the Lord Jesus Christ as the one divinity in the biblical data. That is, the form of this royal codex demonstrates that the early church clearly saw Jesus Christ as the one God of the Bible. Many readers have likely seen the July 10th clip circulating the internet which asserts that the NIV 8220removes8221 many passages 8220from the Bible.8221 Not surprisingly, the post has gained much traction by KJV-only advocates 8211 that is, those who affirm that the KJV alone constitutes 8220the word of God.8221 And, any other translation of the original languages is a supposed 8220perversion8221 of God8217s Word. While such outlandish assertions really do not merit scholarly analysis, the outright misinformation in the post needs to be addressed. In this piece I will briefly demonstrate the factual errors and inherent assumptions made by the original author of the article (this is not intended as an attack on anyone who may have reposted or linked the initial article) 8211 and then I will post a rejoinder paper written by my esteemed Elder and friend, J. R. Ensey. First, the author makes the assertion(s) that the NIV has 8220removed8221 certain words and passages out of 8220the Bible8221 8211 which, obviously, means the KJV. Hence, the writer assumes his conclusion before ever leaving the gate . However, I am wondering which KJV he is calling 8220the Bible8221 since there have been numerous redactions and revisions since the 1611 KJV The KJV used by most today is known as the 1769 Blayney Revision, and there are two versions of this KJV revision 8211 the Oxford and the Cambridge 8211 which differ from one another in various places. Which one of these two KJV8217s does the original writer of the article claim as the solely 8220inspired word of God8221 Further, since KJVO8217s like the author of the post typically argue that the 8220original KJV8221 is what all churches should use, I assume he uses the Apocrypha in his lessons since it was not omitted from the KJV until 1885 A. D. Indeed, the Apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years before it was 8220removed.8221 Hence, unbeknownst to the writer of the article, the 8220removal8221 charge is equally leveled at the KJV, not to even mention the numerous additions of the KJV zero manuscript support 8211 shall we discuss the Book of Revelation. And, I assume that the original author of the clip never consults 8220Strong8217s8221 concordance regarding the original languages since a 400 year old English version is apparently sufficient If the writer has ever been heard to say, 8220This Greek word means 8221 8211 then he has just abandoned the KJV. What about the Chinese, Ethiopic, Japanese, Yugoslavs, etc. Do they all need to learn the Elizabethan English of the 16008217s to be saved Was no one saved prior to 1885 when the Apocrypha was 8220removed8221 from the KJV Did no one have the 8220true word of God8221 prior to 1611 Clearly, those that make such baseless assertions have very little background in the discipline of textual-criticism, know nothing about the ancient Greek MS finds of the late 18008217s in Egypt, nor understand the history of the transmission process. Moreover, it has been well-noted that those who actually do have some background in textual-criticism have been found guilty of sloppy research methods regarding ancient papyrological dating. Before posting Elder Ensey8217s article below, let me hasten to state that if someone wishes to solely use the KJV that is certainly their prerogative. In fact, I always preach from the KJV myself There are places the KJV is rather lacking in its renderings , and there are places the KJV is absolutely excellent in its translation choices . The point of this article is not at all to tear down the KJV, but rather to point out that no translation is absolutely flawless due to the nature of translating from an ancient language (i. e. the sender language) into a contemporary dialect (i. e. the receptor language). And, sadly, there is such a thing as 8220Translation Idolatry.8221 However, the core doctrines of the church remain untouched in any reputable translation and in this we can certainly rejoice and forge ahead In addition to the data presented in this article, I would also point readers to this link which further explicates the NIV translation choices. While I could certainly continue ad-nauseum 8211 8211 the links below should suffice to any sincere seeker of biblical truth. Note: The YouTube links below are strictly educational debates andor academical lectures on this issue: Elder J. R. Ensey8217s paper below in full-text . In some instances I have bolded and underlined Elder Ensey8217s salient points for emphasis: This brief article is submitted in response to a July 10 Facebook posting that was read by many people, including some of our folks here in Living Way Church . It concerned the topic of Bible translations. The purpose of this response is not to uphold or corroborate the NIV renderings, but to bring balance to the topic. 1. The poster on FB said: The NIV is published by Zondervan but is now owned by HarperCollins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and the Joy of Gay Sex. Wow, that sounds ominousas though H-C is really into the gutter of the publishing industry. It is stated in a way that readers would put the NIV in bad company. Zondervan has been owned by HarperCollins for 27 years. H-C is owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns FoxNews. HarperCollins is a conglomerate publishing firm with a number of publishing houses, including Zondervan, in their stable of publishing firms. One of them is Avon Publishing that in 1969 published The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey who died in 1997. He was an occult nutcase in California. It was not a Bible but simply a collection of essays about his experiences and teaching in his cult of Satanism. He merely named his book The Satanic Bible. But reading the FB post one would think that it was a Bible-like book inspired by Satan. It is a classic example of guilt by association . Four years ago, HarperCollins also bought Thomas Nelson Publishers in Nashville. Both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson publish KJV Bibles. By the posters logic, all KJV Bibles should be considered tarnished by being published by a company owned by HarperCollins. Sadly, most readers wont take the time to find out the truth but will accept what some Facebook posting says. 2. The poster said: The NIV has removed 64,575 words from the Bible. That is roughly 8 of the 773,692 words in the KJV, including the italics. Sounds like whole sections of the Bible have been unilaterally excised by unbelieving villains. How deceptive such statements are. Actually, thousands of words have not been removed from the Bible one translation simply uses fewer words to say the same thing. Lets look at the truth below. Many thousands of words were added to the KJV as italics. They were not a part of the biblical text, merely added to smooth up the text for English readers. Also, the Byzantine text family, from which the KJV was translated, was known to be an expansive text, i. e. the Byzantine scribescopyists freely added words to the text, drawing some from the margins of earlier copies of manuscripts, and adding them when they appeared in other places in the text. Words were brought in from the Vulgate and from Roman Catholic liturgical readings. When newer versions do not include the added words they are accused of omittingremovingleaving out words from the Bible. The word count statistic is obviously published and quoted to make it sound like modern versions are arbitrarily leaving out words or passages they dont like, perhaps affecting doctrines. In applying the word count principle used by the KJV advocates, it should be noted that there are some verses where the NIV has more words than the KJV. Does that mean that the KJV has left out some words of the Bible No, but KJV loyalists do not want the same standards applied to the KJV they insist on for later versions. Allow a simple illustration: In II Timothy 4:17 in the KJV Paul states that he was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. The NIV and other translations render that phrase as the lions mouth. That is saying the same thing with only 75 of the number of words. Apply that principle over the entire Bible and it probably amounts to thousands of words. It is also interesting that Hebrews chapter 11 in the KJV only has approximately 920 words, while the NIV has approximately 952. By the posters standards, some words have been left out of the faith chapter by the KJV translators. Overall, the NIV has approximately 92-94 of the number of words the KJV has, counting the KJVs italicized words . Saying the same thing with fewer words does NOT mean something has been left out that was in the original Bible. Remember: the Bible is not a 17th century version, but the inspired words put down by the writers of Scripture 2000 years ago. The KJV is merely one in a line of English translations done in Elizabethan England over 400 years ago. Approximately 80 of the KJV was borrowed from Tyndales Bible, with other sections, words and phrases taken from the Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible. As early Greek manuscripts were scarce then, they used the 1550 Stephanus and 1598 Beza editions of what would become the Textus Receptus for the basic Greek text. The NIV is condemned for having fewer words to express the Greek in English, but is it OK for the KJV translators to leave out words entirely from Greek text Apparently so, but if modern translators leave out words contained in the KJV translation, it is called heresy. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Where is the consistency For example, the KJV clearly omits Jesus Christ our Lord in Romans 1:4, when it is plainly there in the TR Greek New Testament. Jude 25 in the KJV omits through Jesus Christ our Lord, a phrase found in the NIV, ESV and other modern versions because of its Greek manuscript support. My edition of the Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550) has it in the footnotes. Wycliffe had the phrase, as did the Cranmer Bible and the Rheims prior to 1611, but the KJV translators did not include it. By the posters logic, the 1611 translators were heretical modernists and liberals trying to intentionally delete references to Christs ministry as Mediator. The KJV also omitted the phrase kai esmen, and so we are (ESV), and that is what we are (NIV) from I John 3:1. Were the KJV translators attempting to deny that we are actually children of God When you hear that some new version has omitted something from the Bible, think about it. The sword cuts both ways. What can be charged against the contemporary versions can also be charged against the KJV. In reality, no charges need to be filedjust try to understand the process of textual criticism and the difficulty of translating from one language to another with nearly 6000 Greek manuscripts to consider. No doctrines have had to be scrapped because of any variants in the Greek texts. The poster suggested in print to hand someone a current Bible, such as the NIV, and say, Find these verses: Matthew 17:21 18:11 23:14 Mark 7:16, knowing those particular verses would not be found in the body of the text, only in footnotes. However, even Mark 7:16 is labeled in the Textus Receptus as doubtful. Perhaps he meant to add Luke 17:36, a verse that obviously does not belong in the Bible. Even the KJV translators expressed as much in the margin of the 1611 KJV. It doesnt belong because it appears only in D and a few late manuscripts, and absent from virtually all early manuscripts, even from the Textus Receptus (1550 Stephanus). This seems to corroborate the perception that the KJV actively pursued an expansion of piety. However, to KJV apologists, versions lacking the words have excised them from the Bible. Have you ever wondered why there are no marginal notes in modern KJV Bibles Many notes included by the translators that they were not sure about certain renderings, didnt know what certain words actually meant, and put in the margins what contemporary Bibles put in footnotes. But the marginal notes have been removed. Also removed from modern KJV Bibles is the important Preface where the translators expressed their opinions about the need for further translation work, and why they made certain renderings. It is on the Net and it makes good reading. Back to the scriptures left out. Regarding Matthew 17:21, it is considered by virtually all textual critics to be an assimilation from Mark 9:29, a copyists practice called parallel influenceimporting a verse or phrase from another place in the text to make them match. Luke 18:11 is an assimilation from Luke 19:10 Matthew 23:14 from Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. Mark 7:16 is usually footnoted in the contemporary versions because of its absence in a number of early manuscripts, and seems to be borrowed from Mark 4:9,23 where it functions as the conclusion to an important teaching of the Lord. In Mark 9:44,46 the phrase where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched was inserted in later manuscripts to match v. 48. Many manuscripts do not contain the two earlier verses, therefore they are often omitted or footnoted in contemporary versions. That same hand a Bible exercise could be played like this: Hand someone a KJV and ask them to try to find Jesus in Acts 16:7, or in Acts 24:24, or Romans 1:4, 8:34, or find the cross in Colossians 2:15, or find salvation in I Peter 2:2, or nor the Son in Matthew 24:36, or find the holy One in Revelation 16:5in the Greek but omitted completely in the KJV. Or, hand someone any Greek New Testament, including the first two editions of the Textus Receptus . and say, Find the three heavenly witnesses of I John 5:7,8. That phrase appears in no Greek Bible text before the 16th century. Or hand someone a Majority Text (representing the inclusions in a majority of Greek manuscripts) and say find Acts 8:37. Not there. That is why it is missing or footnoted in contemporary Bibles. Rather than play these word games, lets sit down at a table and look at the original language Bible manuscripts and arrive at the real reason there are variants in them that have to be considered. These silly word games ultimately prove nothing. The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), p. 155. 3. The poster said that there were 45 complete verses removed from the Bible (i. e, the KJV). The ones the poster was referring to could probably be easily identified, but he did not list them. Why To say some verse or phrase was omitted without providing an explanation borders on deception. It creates the image of someone unilaterally cutting scriptures out of the Bible that contradict their theology. Conspiracy is afoot is the thought they wish to instill. If the poster will provide them, we will be happy to show the reasoning behind the variants. 4. The poster specifically listed four words he said were removed from the NIV. It sounded like the whole concept behind each word was excised, as though God Himself and the whole experience of Calvary were removed. They want readers to think the worst. Jehovah This is a manufactured word appearing in the Middle Ages as an outgrowth of the hesitancy to pronounce the real name of the Lord YHWH . It appears seven times in the Old Testament, including in the compound names like Jehovah-Jireh, but none in the New Testament. It is spelled Iehovah in the original KJV because the letter J was not in common use in that era. For the sake of time let me share with the reader what the Wikipedia says about this word: Jehovah (dhov j - HOH - v ) is a Latinization of the Hebrew , one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. This vocalization has been transliterated as Yehowah,1 while YHWH itself has been transliterated as Yahweh .2 appears 6,518 times in the traditional Masoretic Text. in addition to 305 instances of ( Jehovih ).3 The earliest available Latin text to use a vocalization similar to Jehovah dates from the 13th century.4 Most scholars believe Jehovah to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai . but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century).5 6 The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. however there is disagreement. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism. during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai (my Lord). Jehovah was popularized in the English-speaking world by William Tyndale and other pioneer English Protestant translators,7 but is no longer used in mainstream English translations, with Lord or LORD used instead, generally indicating that the corresponding Hebrew is Yahweh or YHWH .8 9 5. Footnotes to above article: 1 . GOD, NAMES OF 8211 5. Yahweh (Yahweh) 8211 Bible Study Tools. Retrieved 19 November 2014. 2. Preface to the New American Standard Bible 3. Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon 4 . Pugio fidei by Raymund Martin. written in about 1270 5. Roy Kotansky, Jeffrey Spier, The 8216Horned Hunter8217 on a Lost Gnostic Gem , The Harvard Theological Review . Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul. 1995), p. 318. Quote: Although most scholars believe Jehovah to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai (the traditionally pronounced version of ), many magical texts in Semitic and Greek establish an early pronunciation of the divine name as both Yehovah and Yahweh 6 . George Wesley Buchanan, The Tower of Siloam , The Expository Times 2003 115: 37 pp. 40, 41. Quote from Note 19: This Yehowah is the correct pronunciation of the tetragramaton, as is clear from the pronunciation of proper names in the First Testament (FT), poetry, fifth-century Aramaic documents, Greek translations of the name in the Dead Sea Scrolls and church fathers. 7. In the 7th paragraph of Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible . Sir Godfry Driver wrote. The early translators generally substituted 8216Lord8217 for YHWH. 8230 The Reformers preferred Jehovah, which first appeared as Iehouah in 1530 A. D. in Tyndale8217s translation of the Pentateuch (Exodus 6.3), from which it passed into other Protestant Bibles. 8. English Standard Version Translation Oversight Committee Preface to the English Standard Version Quote: When the vowels of the word Adonai are placed with the consonants of YHWH, this results in the familiar word Jehovah that was used in some earlier English Bible translations. As is common among English translations today, the ESV usually renders the personal name of God (YHWH) with the word Lord (printed in small capitals). 9. Bruce M. Metzger for the New Revised Standard Version Committee. To the Reader 8230 Calvary This word was translated from the Greek kranion . meaning the skull. It came into the KJV from the Catholic Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe, who translated the Latin Vulgate into English in the 14th century, rendered it calveri, from the Latin calvaria. Tyndale picked it up at Luke 23:33 (the only place it appears) and it was carried forth in the 1611 KJV as Calvarie, still clinging to the Latin. It is spelled 8220Calvary8221 in modern KJV editions, but contemporary versions correctly use the English translation of the Greek word: 8220The Skull. Holy Ghost This is the 17th century rendering of Hagios Pneumaliterally, Holy Spirit. Holy Ghost was a term introduced by Wycliffe in the 14th century as holi goost. Tyndale used the same term. In 1582 it appeared as holy Ghost, and in 1611 as Holy Ghost. The technically correct rendering of Pneuma is Spirit. Wherever Holy Ghost appears in the KJV, most contemporary versions use Holy Spirit. So the words you mentioned have not really disappeared, dear poster, only an archaic rendering. Omnipotent This word appears once in the New Testament (Revelation 19:6). It is translated from the Greek pantokrator meaning Almighty. The KJV translators, in their 1611 Preface to the KJV, confessed the practice of rendering the same Greek term in different ways for the sake of varietie. Therefore, they rendered the same Greek term as omnipotent in Revelation 19:6, but as Almighty in II Corinthians 6:18. God is omnipotent, but that is just another word for Almighty. The variety of words approach can be useful in certain cases, but it confuses some readers. Renowned Greek linguist, Dr. William Mounce says, Theos ho pantokrator in Revelation 19:6 is literally God the Almighty. To be clearer and more accurate, hardly any contemporary versions use omnipotent. Please dont be confused when you dont find these words in your KJV. This is submitted as a reminder that not everything one reads on Facebook is worthy of forwarding or repeating. The Long Ending of Mark Post navigation