Michael the archangel

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Because Jehovah is God and God deserves to be worshipped, forgive me but i thought everyone understood that.

No one is saying that proskyneó cannot be rendered as worship but as i gave demonstrated in the case of Jesus the only basis that you have is that its in connection with Jesus and as we now know Jesus exerts magical properties on nouns an ...[text shortened]... e to Jesus makes absolutely no sense in some instances, but that's nominal Christianity for you.

So Satan and the beast of revelation deserves worship, but not Jesus in your opinion. Wow! What a warped mind you have.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So Satan and the beast of revelation deserves worship, but not Jesus in your opinion. Wow! What a warped mind you have.

I have not said they deserve worship and once again you have demonstrated that you are incapable of rational thought, thank you for demonstrating what we have always known although i could easily have done it without you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not said they deserve worship and once again you have demonstrated that you are incapable of rational thought, thank you for demonstrating what we have always known although i could easily have done it without you.

Why then is it translated worshipped for Satan and the beast and not for Jesus?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why then is it translated worshipped for Satan and the beast and not for Jesus?

probably context i would surmise without having actually looked at the specific texts i cannot say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
probably context i would surmise without having actually looked at the specific texts i cannot say.

Suzianne gave you the text and you haven't looked at them yet? Are you a male chauvinist pig who does not pay any attention to what women say?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Suzianne gave you the text and you haven't looked at them yet? Are you a male chauvinist pig who does not pay any attention to what women say?

again you seem incapable of rational thought, the text is not about me, its about the term for worship in the Bible, why you seem incapable of distinguishing the two is known only to you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again you seem incapable of rational thought, the text is not about me, its about the term for worship in the Bible, why you seem incapable of distinguishing the two is known only to you.

You haven't read the text, so it is about your disreguard for determining the truth of a matter. So are you going to continue to ignore the question?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You haven't read the text, so it is about your disreguard for determining the truth of a matter. So are you going to continue to ignore the question?

what question? why the text is rendered as worshipping Satan and the beast? i already have, probably context has swayed the translators to render those terms as worship. Whether its an accurate rendering remains to be seen.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Look at any translation other than the NWT and you will see the word "worship" in every verse I referenced. If you look at the 1970 edition and earlier of the NWT at Hebrews 1:16 you will also see the word "worship" there unless you are blind.

There is no Heb 1:16. Try again.......

Originally posted by RJHinds
So Satan and the beast of revelation deserves worship, but not Jesus in your opinion. Wow! What a warped mind you have.

Really? Are you serious with a comment like that? Think first and stop the knee jerk actions Ron and you might learn.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Because Jehovah is God and God deserves to be worshipped, forgive me but i thought everyone understood that.

No one is saying that proskyneó cannot be rendered as worship but as i gave demonstrated in the case of Jesus the only basis that you have is that its in connection with Jesus and as we now know Jesus exerts magical properties on nouns an ...[text shortened]... e to Jesus makes absolutely no sense in some instances, but that's nominal Christianity for you.

You asked for references in the Bible showing "proskyneó" meaning "worship" and now that I have, you change your tune. It is NOT only used in the case of Jesus, but the JWs have perverted the ancient text by admitting that it means worship when used for everyone else, but claiming it doesn't when Jesus is involved. Your bias is obvious.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what question? why the text is rendered as worshipping Satan and the beast? i already have, probably context has swayed the translators to render those terms as worship. Whether its an accurate rendering remains to be seen.

And yet you claim that translators cannot use context like the translators of the KJV did when translating Col. 1.

You cannot have it both ways.


By the way, I was careful to only use verses which were translated as worship by *your* NWT. So be careful what you call 'not accurate'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You asked for references in the Bible showing "proskyneó" meaning "worship" and now that I have, you change your tune. It is NOT only used in the case of Jesus, but the JWs have perverted the ancient text by admitting that it means worship when used for everyone else, but claiming it doesn't when Jesus is involved. Your bias is obvious.

I have changed nothing, i am an excellent student of scripture and was fully aware of how the term can be rendered, you really are not that knowledgeable suzzianne, that is why you need to resort to using third party references explaining concepts for you where i have consistently made reference to the #Bible in its original language.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Book of Revelation (12:7-9) describes a war in heaven in which Michael, being stronger, defeats Satan:[12]

"...there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven."

After the conflict, Satan is thrown to ea ...[text shortened]... 8][59]

what scriptural basis is therefore believing that Christ is also the archangel Michael

"what scriptural basis is therefore believing that Christ is also the archangel Michael"

WHAT?

Therefore, what grammatical basis is there for believing you can read a Bible and understand what it is saying?

Hilarious! 😵

Originally posted by Suzianne
And yet you claim that translators cannot use context like the translators of the KJV did when translating Col. 1.

You cannot have it both ways.


By the way, I was careful to only use verses which were translated as worship by *your* NWT. So be careful what you call 'not accurate'.

what you attempted to do rather dishonestly with colossians chapter 1 was to impose your dogma on scripture, there is absolutely nothing in the language to indicate that the verse should read the first-born above all creation, nothing. I have no problem with people and translators bringing out the implicit meaning but stating that Jesus is above all creation is simply im,[posing a religious bias on scripture where none is found in the text.

With the term for worship, prostrating, bowing downm tc there is room for the context needs to be considered . not so with colossians for the Greek is quite explicit as it stands, Christ is the first-born of all creation.