@galveston75 saidI think if you tightened up on these lapses, there would be no longer be this question mark over your integrity, and that ought to make you happy too.
@FMF
Lol. Whatever makes you happy.......
08 Jan 20
@galveston75 saidI got called out for plagiarizing once about ten years ago and I haven't done it since. Suggesting that you take a leaf out of my book is not me being "high and mighty".
@FMF Oh high and mighty policeman of the spiritual forum, Captain FMF...get over yourself. I am...
@FMF
"According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to "plagiarize" means: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own to use (another's production) without crediting the source to commit literary theft."
Did I ever say, claim, or say those were my words and thoughts or opinions? No I did not.
You know clear as a bell that you and your besty buddy friend hate the Witnesses and are always lurking in the shadows to jump on any little thing you think you can pounce on. Get over yourself.............
09 Jan 20
@galveston75 saidIf you do not cite your source or acknowledge when you reproduce someone else's writing on a forum such as this, then that is passing it off as your own, and that is plagiarism. Doing it once, and being called out and having it explained to you, is one thing, but doing it over and over and over again is very poor form and reflects badly on the person doing it.
@FMF
"According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to "plagiarize" means: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own to use (another's production) without crediting the source to commit literary theft."
Did I ever say, claim, or say those were my words and thoughts or opinions? No I did not.
@galveston75 saidI do not "hate" Jehovah's Witnesses. It's wrong for you to claim that I do. And I do not "lurk in the shadows" on this forum; quite the opposite.
You know clear as a bell that you and your besty buddy friend hate the Witnesses and are always lurking in the shadows to jump on any little thing you think you can pounce on. Get over yourself.............
09 Jan 20
@galveston75 saidPassing off the ideas or words of another as one's own to use without crediting the source
"According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to "plagiarize" means: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own to use (another's production) without crediting the source to commit literary theft."
Exactly.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29601
09 Jan 20
@sonship
God refers to Himself using plural pronouns four times in the Bible. These verses occur before the doctrine of the Trinity is mentioned in the Bible, so we can infer that God is using this stylistic device to make His power evident through language. The four times that God uses the majestic plural occur in the Old Testament. The most quoted example occurs in Genesis 1:26. God says, "'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ...'" Here, and also in Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7, and Isaiah 6:8, God uses the pronouns "us" and "our" to speak of Himself in plural form.
'https://www.compellingtruth.org/majestic-plural.html
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Jan 20
1 edit
Let Us make man in our image
by Matt Slick
There are several verses in the Old Testament where God speaks as a plurality. Many Trinitarians quote these verses to help support the Trinity doctrine because they strongly suggest that there is more than one person in the Godhead.
"Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26, NASB).
"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22, NASB).
“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech,” (Gen. 11:7, NASB).
"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:8, NASB)
Those opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity say that God is speaking of Himself in a "royal" sense - in a "plural of majesty." They can say this, but biblically there is never any account of a king or a ruler speaking of himself in a plural sense or in the third person. So, there is no biblical support for God using it of Himself in this way.
Regarding Gen. 1:26, those who deny the Trinity say that when God says, "Let Us make . . . " He is speaking with the angels in mind. The problem with this is that angels do not create. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that angels created anything at all. We see in Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone.'" God made all things alone. Therefore, the "us" in "Let Us make man in our image" cannot be the angels. Furthermore, people are not created in the image of angels but of God.
The three verses in Genesis do not prove that the Trinity is true. However, they cannot be dismissed by the assumption that God is speaking of himself in a type of third-person way.
Furthermore, notice in the fourth verse above,Isaiah 6:8, that God is speaking in the singular and then switches to the plural. He says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" This on the unusual construction: the singular speaker refers to himself in the plural.
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
www.carm.org
[my bolding]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29601
09 Jan 20
@sonship saidI find this quite a weak response, by the writer concerned. (In order to parry the 'plural of majesty' issue). It may be true that no king of that time deployed the 'royal We' but is God's language governed by that of man? I suspect a truly powerful and wise deity was aware of the importance of language and how a 'majestic plural' would convey power and greatness. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that God would have chosen to speak in such a manner. Or do you not consider your God powerful, great and majestic?
Those opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity say that God is speaking of Himself in a "royal" sense - in a "plural of majesty." They can say this, but biblically there is never any account of a king or a ruler speaking of himself in a plural sense or in the third person. So, there is no biblical support for God using it of Himself in this way.
I find it odd that when God says 'Us' you think He must mean He is more than one person, and yet do not think the same of Queen Victoria when she says 'We.'
09 Jan 20
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI suggest you look up words like Elohim and other terms that refer to God in the scriptures as well. The fact that God does refer to Himself that way is essential, why do you claim that "God is using a stylistic device" you don't believe in God. If God did refer to Himself that way why question it, if God isn't real, who cares how its portrayed?
@sonship
God refers to Himself using plural pronouns four times in the Bible. These verses occur before the doctrine of the Trinity is mentioned in the Bible, so we can infer that God is using this stylistic device to make His power evident through language. The four times that God uses the majestic plural occur in the Old Testament. The most quoted example occurs ...[text shortened]... "our" to speak of Himself in plural form.
'https://www.compellingtruth.org/majestic-plural.html
When writing Genesis you think Moses cared or knew about the majestic plural?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29601
10 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidMy own view on the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant. It has no bearing on my ability to discuss the language used in scripture. And this 'stylistic device' is very important in understanding the very nature of the God presented.
I suggest you look up words like Elohim and other terms that refer to God in the scriptures as well. The fact that God does refer to Himself that way is essential, why do you claim that "God is using a stylistic device" you don't believe in God. If God did refer to Himself that way why question it, if God isn't real, who cares how its portrayed?
When writing Genesis you think Moses cared or knew about the majestic plural?
10 Jan 20
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI don't think so. You view it all according to how you look at the world, so you feel free to connect the dots of a modern-day queen with text written long before her time, for reasons that have nothing to do with her in any stretch of the imagination except yours and like minded. You have all the liberty in the world to do and say anything about the text for you; it is fiction, so nothing is stopping you from using this 'stylistic device' to look at the very person of God and the revelation of scripture. You do this, turning very words of the revelation of God to man into a work of fiction, so the revelations within scripture are always lost on you.
My own view on the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant. It has no bearing on my ability to discuss the language used in scripture. And this 'stylistic device' is very important in understanding the very nature of the God presented.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29601
10 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidOne of God's most common names in the Old Testament is Elohim, which translates literally to "gods." However, when Elohim is used to describe the One True God, it is translated to "God." This is a fascinating word play in translation that teaches us how the majestic plural can be used in a word that is not a pronoun. An example of this translation of Elohim occurs in Deuteronomy 4:35. It states, in part, that, "The Lord is God." Translated into Hebrew, this is "Yahweh is Elohim." Note the use of plural "Elohim" coupled with singular "Lord." This shows that there is only one God, and the plural usage is meant as a majestic plural. Yahweh and Elohim are also coupled in Deuteronomy 6:4, which very clearly says that there is only one God.'
I suggest you look up words like Elohim and other terms that refer to God in the scriptures as well. The fact that God does refer to Himself that way is essential, why do you claim that "God is using a stylistic device" you don't believe in God. If God did refer to Himself that way why question it, if God isn't real, who cares how its portrayed?
When writing Genesis you think Moses cared or knew about the majestic plural?
'https://www.compellingtruth.org/majestic-plural.html