Is my statement blasphemy to you?

[Wootah]

'Wootah is one with God and is in God and is equal to God.'

Is my statement blasphemy to you?

[Wootah]

Seems like God needs Jesus.

That is ok.

God needing a non-God creature is also blasphemy.

You have no clue as to what is reality and why. You actually think you can judge God?
God is like a loving Father to those who draw close to him. He wants to be your friend. There is nothing wrong with that.

Just use the opportunity to debate to challenge your views. Of you can't refute a position consider adopting it.

[Miles]

Seems like God needs Jesus.

That is ok.

God needing a non-God creature is also blasphemy.

You have no clue as to what is reality and why. You actually think you can judge God?
God is like a loving Father to those who draw close to him. He wants to be your friend. There is nothing wrong with that.

As much as you see god as a "loving Father to those who draw close to him," I regard some of his actions to be far less than loving, sometimes even cruel, hateful and vindictive. To wit:

God's Cruelty

2 Kings 2:23-24
23 Elisha went from that city to Bethel. He was walking up the hill to the city, and some boys were coming down out of the city. They began making fun of him. They said, “Go away, you bald-headed man! Go away, you bald-headed man!”

24 Elisha looked back and saw them. He asked the Lord to cause bad things to happen to them. Then two bears came out of the forest and attacked the boys. There were 42 boys ripped apart by the bears.

Think the attack fit the crime? I don't. It was viciously cruel. Think it wasn't actually a response from god? Of course it was. Elisha and God were like best buds, god having answered other requests from Elisha.


God's Hatefulness

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Other than hating gay sex and calling it an abomination, god gives no other reason for ordering the death of such men. And for whatever reason god only scolds women for doing the same. Conclusion: god simply has it in for gay guys. God hates it when a man lies with a male as with a woman. "Why?" you might ask him, "It brings pleasure and doesn't hurt anyone or anything else. So why do you hate it it?". . . . . . . . . . . . . All I can say is, don't starve to death waiting for an answer.



God's Vindictiveness

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.’”

Pretty much the quintessential description of vindictiveness.

.

[1213]

...
And just what was it that Jesus said that made the Pharisees think "Jesus was making himself God"? How about "“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” in John 8:58? The very same title god gave himself in Exodus 3:14, "where "God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

.

Jesus doesn't say "I am I am", therefore the scripture doesn't mean he is calling himself God.

Where does scripture use the phrase "I am I am" is necessary? God surely didn't say it of himself. Thing is, 1213, you can't simply make up things and expect them to be taken seriously. Ya gots to have more than just your opinion working for ya.

.

Yes, but if people claim Jesus says he is the God, when he says "I am", it doesn't work, because it is the same as just saying "God". If he would claim to be the God, he would say "I am God", or "I am I am".

And God says in the Bible "I am I am":

[/i]Ex. 3:14

What Bible is that? I ask because none of the 54 Bibles I checked say "I am I am," but rather “I Am That I Am,” or “I Am Who I Am.”

.

Isn't that the same as "I am I am"?

[onewithhim]

...
And just what was it that Jesus said that made the Pharisees think "Jesus was making himself God"? How about "“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” in John 8:58? The very same title god gave himself in Exodus 3:14, "where "God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

.

Jesus doesn't say "I am I am", therefore the scripture doesn't mean he is calling himself God.

Where does scripture use the phrase "I am I am" is necessary? God surely didn't say it of himself. Thing is, 1213, you can't simply make up things and expect them to be taken seriously. Ya gots to have more than just your opinion working for ya.

.

It is not 1213's opinion. It is a fact that Jesus didn't say "I Am" meaning that he was God.

I'm taking that as your opinion as well.

If translators want people who speak English to understand the verses, they must use good English (Robert Bratcher). The rendering of John 8:58 in many Bibles, esp. the King James Version, is not good English at all. (It is absolutely biased when the translation is like the KJV.) It mixes a present tense verb with a past tense verb in a totally ungrammatical construction. What Jesus says is fine, idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order, and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression . (See Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, page 104.) These steps are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Many translations, except the NWT and the Living Bible, use a mangled word order. Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper, comprehensible English. (At least that is what translators are supposed to do, and many Bible versions do that.)The closest we can get to what the Greek says in our own language is: "I have been since before Abraham came to be," paying attention to all parts of the sentence.

Then why do 95% of the 61 Bibles I checked, 58, use the exact term "I am”?

And while it's somewhat interesting, as mere opinion it doesn't carry any weight. Far better had you cited linkable, authoritative sources.

Both the NWT and the LB offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom.

"The Living Bible (TLB or LB) is a personal paraphrase, not a translation, of the Bible in English

Michael Marlowe criticized the edition, saying that it was "the dumbing-down of the Biblical text to a grade-school level" done "in keeping with the linguistic and educational trends of the time." He adds that "very few scholars have given any encouragement to its [The Living Bible] use, and most have either ignored it or have strictly warned against it." Moreover, he claims that the text of The Living Bible contains "venturesome interpretations that no scholar is likely to approve" and that " several places Taylor brazenly wrests the scripture so as to conform it to Arminian teachings about salvation."
[source: Wikipedia]

So, so much for the scholarship of the LB. And everyone knows the NWT was constructed so as to fit its theology. So both interpretations beg to be ignored, which I'm happy to do.

The other translations fail to do this.

And I would say "For good reason other translations chose not to do this"

Gotta say, although I do appreciate the trouble you've gone to present your case, because in scanning what follows

John 14:9 and John 15:27 have exactly the same construction as . . . .


. . . .can see that 1213 is not making up what he said.

I see it too lacks linkable, authoritative sources, so I'm going to pass on it all. Perhaps in the next discussion you'll provide sources we can check.

.

I provided the source of a Bible scholar (Jason BeDuhn) who is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He has no ax to grind and is just interested in the truth. He holds an MTS in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D in the comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (John Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the American Academy of Religion.

He is a knowledgeable scholar that knows what he's talking about. You will undoubtedly say that he doesn't, but that's your opinion.

(See Truth in Translation/ Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003 by University Press of America, Inc., 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suit 200)

[otseng]

You have no clue as to what is reality and why. You actually think you can judge God?

Moderator Warning



Please do not make any personal comments while debating.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Miles]

...
And just what was it that Jesus said that made the Pharisees think "Jesus was making himself God"? How about "“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” in John 8:58? The very same title god gave himself in Exodus 3:14, "where "God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

.

Jesus doesn't say "I am I am", therefore the scripture doesn't mean he is calling himself God.

Where does scripture use the phrase "I am I am" is necessary? God surely didn't say it of himself. Thing is, 1213, you can't simply make up things and expect them to be taken seriously. Ya gots to have more than just your opinion working for ya.

.

It is not 1213's opinion. It is a fact that Jesus didn't say "I Am" meaning that he was God.

I'm taking that as your opinion as well.

If translators want people who speak English to understand the verses, they must use good English (Robert Bratcher). The rendering of John 8:58 in many Bibles, esp. the King James Version, is not good English at all. (It is absolutely biased when the translation is like the KJV.) It mixes a present tense verb with a past tense verb in a totally ungrammatical construction. What Jesus says is fine, idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order, and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression . (See Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, page 104.) These steps are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Many translations, except the NWT and the Living Bible, use a mangled word order. Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper, comprehensible English. (At least that is what translators are supposed to do, and many Bible versions do that.)The closest we can get to what the Greek says in our own language is: "I have been since before Abraham came to be," paying attention to all parts of the sentence.

Then why do 95% of the 61 Bibles I checked, 58, use the exact term "I am”?

And while it's somewhat interesting, as mere opinion it doesn't carry any weight. Far better had you cited linkable, authoritative sources.

Both the NWT and the LB offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom.

"The Living Bible (TLB or LB) is a personal paraphrase, not a translation, of the Bible in English

Michael Marlowe criticized the edition, saying that it was "the dumbing-down of the Biblical text to a grade-school level" done "in keeping with the linguistic and educational trends of the time." He adds that "very few scholars have given any encouragement to its [The Living Bible] use, and most have either ignored it or have strictly warned against it." Moreover, he claims that the text of The Living Bible contains "venturesome interpretations that no scholar is likely to approve" and that " several places Taylor brazenly wrests the scripture so as to conform it to Arminian teachings about salvation."
[source: Wikipedia]

So, so much for the scholarship of the LB. And everyone knows the NWT was constructed so as to fit its theology. So both interpretations beg to be ignored, which I'm happy to do.

The other translations fail to do this.

And I would say "For good reason other translations chose not to do this"

Gotta say, although I do appreciate the trouble you've gone to present your case, because in scanning what follows

John 14:9 and John 15:27 have exactly the same construction as . . . .


. . . .can see that 1213 is not making up what he said.

I see it too lacks linkable, authoritative sources, so I'm going to pass on it all. Perhaps in the next discussion you'll provide sources we can check.

.

I provided the source of a Bible scholar (Jason BeDuhn) who is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He has no ax to grind and is just interested in the truth. He holds an MTS in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D in the comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (John Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the American Academy of Religion.

He is a knowledgeable scholar that knows what he's talking about. You will undoubtedly say that he doesn't, but that's your opinion.

(See Truth in Translation/ Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003 by University Press of America, Inc., 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suit 200)

And I said "linkable." I don't expect anyone to take unquoted and unlinked information as anything but opinion, in which case its merit rests on its source, coherence, and reasonableness.

.

[kjw47]

Seems like God needs Jesus.

That is ok.

God needing a non-God creature is also blasphemy.

You have no clue as to what is reality and why. You actually think you can judge God?
God is like a loving Father to those who draw close to him. He wants to be your friend. There is nothing wrong with that.

As much as you see god as a "loving Father to those who draw close to him," I regard some of his actions to be far less than loving, sometimes even cruel, hateful and vindictive. To wit:

God's Cruelty

2 Kings 2:23-24
23 Elisha went from that city to Bethel. He was walking up the hill to the city, and some boys were coming down out of the city. They began making fun of him. They said, “Go away, you bald-headed man! Go away, you bald-headed man!”

24 Elisha looked back and saw them. He asked the Lord to cause bad things to happen to them. Then two bears came out of the forest and attacked the boys. There were 42 boys ripped apart by the bears.

Think the attack fit the crime? I don't. It was viciously cruel. Think it wasn't actually a response from god? Of course it was. Elisha and God were like best buds, god having answered other requests from Elisha.


God's Hatefulness

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Other than hating gay sex and calling it an abomination, god gives no other reason for ordering the death of such men. And for whatever reason god only scolds women for doing the same. Conclusion: god simply has it in for gay guys. God hates it when a man lies with a male as with a woman. "Why?" you might ask him, "It brings pleasure and doesn't hurt anyone or anything else. So why do you hate it it?". . . . . . . . . . . . . All I can say is, don't starve to death waiting for an answer.



God's Vindictiveness

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.’”

Pretty much the quintessential description of vindictiveness.

.

God owns all of creation, He has 100% right to say what is allowed and what is not allowed. All supporting satans side deserve death. Satan did 0 for anyone. God handed life for free to all.

[Miles]

Seems like God needs Jesus.

That is ok.

God needing a non-God creature is also blasphemy.

You have no clue as to what is reality and why. You actually think you can judge God?
God is like a loving Father to those who draw close to him. He wants to be your friend. There is nothing wrong with that.

As much as you see god as a "loving Father to those who draw close to him," I regard some of his actions to be far less than loving, sometimes even cruel, hateful and vindictive. To wit:

God's Cruelty

2 Kings 2:23-24
23 Elisha went from that city to Bethel. He was walking up the hill to the city, and some boys were coming down out of the city. They began making fun of him. They said, “Go away, you bald-headed man! Go away, you bald-headed man!”

24 Elisha looked back and saw them. He asked the Lord to cause bad things to happen to them. Then two bears came out of the forest and attacked the boys. There were 42 boys ripped apart by the bears.

Think the attack fit the crime? I don't. It was viciously cruel. Think it wasn't actually a response from god? Of course it was. Elisha and God were like best buds, god having answered other requests from Elisha.


God's Hatefulness

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Other than hating gay sex and calling it an abomination, god gives no other reason for ordering the death of such men. And for whatever reason god only scolds women for doing the same. Conclusion: god simply has it in for gay guys. God hates it when a man lies with a male as with a woman. "Why?" you might ask him, "It brings pleasure and doesn't hurt anyone or anything else. So why do you hate it it?". . . . . . . . . . . . . All I can say is, don't starve to death waiting for an answer.



God's Vindictiveness

1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.’”

Pretty much the quintessential description of vindictiveness.

.

God owns all of creation,

Book, chapter, and verse where he says this.

He has 100% right to say what is allowed and what is not allowed.

As does anyone, but so what?

.

[onewithhim]

...
And just what was it that Jesus said that made the Pharisees think "Jesus was making himself God"? How about "“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” in John 8:58? The very same title god gave himself in Exodus 3:14, "where "God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

.

Jesus doesn't say "I am I am", therefore the scripture doesn't mean he is calling himself God.

Where does scripture use the phrase "I am I am" is necessary? God surely didn't say it of himself. Thing is, 1213, you can't simply make up things and expect them to be taken seriously. Ya gots to have more than just your opinion working for ya.

.

It is not 1213's opinion. It is a fact that Jesus didn't say "I Am" meaning that he was God.

I'm taking that as your opinion as well.

If translators want people who speak English to understand the verses, they must use good English (Robert Bratcher). The rendering of John 8:58 in many Bibles, esp. the King James Version, is not good English at all. (It is absolutely biased when the translation is like the KJV.) It mixes a present tense verb with a past tense verb in a totally ungrammatical construction. What Jesus says is fine, idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order, and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression . (See Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, page 104.) These steps are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Many translations, except the NWT and the Living Bible, use a mangled word order. Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper, comprehensible English. (At least that is what translators are supposed to do, and many Bible versions do that.)The closest we can get to what the Greek says in our own language is: "I have been since before Abraham came to be," paying attention to all parts of the sentence.

Then why do 95% of the 61 Bibles I checked, 58, use the exact term "I am”?

And while it's somewhat interesting, as mere opinion it doesn't carry any weight. Far better had you cited linkable, authoritative sources.

Both the NWT and the LB offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom.

"The Living Bible (TLB or LB) is a personal paraphrase, not a translation, of the Bible in English

Michael Marlowe criticized the edition, saying that it was "the dumbing-down of the Biblical text to a grade-school level" done "in keeping with the linguistic and educational trends of the time." He adds that "very few scholars have given any encouragement to its [The Living Bible] use, and most have either ignored it or have strictly warned against it." Moreover, he claims that the text of The Living Bible contains "venturesome interpretations that no scholar is likely to approve" and that " several places Taylor brazenly wrests the scripture so as to conform it to Arminian teachings about salvation."
[source: Wikipedia]

So, so much for the scholarship of the LB. And everyone knows the NWT was constructed so as to fit its theology. So both interpretations beg to be ignored, which I'm happy to do.

The other translations fail to do this.

And I would say "For good reason other translations chose not to do this"

Gotta say, although I do appreciate the trouble you've gone to present your case, because in scanning what follows

John 14:9 and John 15:27 have exactly the same construction as . . . .


. . . .can see that 1213 is not making up what he said.

I see it too lacks linkable, authoritative sources, so I'm going to pass on it all. Perhaps in the next discussion you'll provide sources we can check.

.

I provided the source of a Bible scholar (Jason BeDuhn) who is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He has no ax to grind and is just interested in the truth. He holds an MTS in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D in the comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (John Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the American Academy of Religion.

He is a knowledgeable scholar that knows what he's talking about. You will undoubtedly say that he doesn't, but that's your opinion.

(See Truth in Translation/ Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003 by University Press of America, Inc., 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suit 200)

And I said "linkable." I don't expect anyone to take unquoted and unlinked information as anything but opinion, in which case its merit rests on its source, coherence, and reasonableness.

.

I don't know how to do links, childish though that may be. The best I can do is the old-fashioned way of looking at the book itself.

[Miles]

...
And just what was it that Jesus said that made the Pharisees think "Jesus was making himself God"? How about "“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” in John 8:58? The very same title god gave himself in Exodus 3:14, "where "God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

.

Jesus doesn't say "I am I am", therefore the scripture doesn't mean he is calling himself God.

Where does scripture use the phrase "I am I am" is necessary? God surely didn't say it of himself. Thing is, 1213, you can't simply make up things and expect them to be taken seriously. Ya gots to have more than just your opinion working for ya.

.

It is not 1213's opinion. It is a fact that Jesus didn't say "I Am" meaning that he was God.

I'm taking that as your opinion as well.

If translators want people who speak English to understand the verses, they must use good English (Robert Bratcher). The rendering of John 8:58 in many Bibles, esp. the King James Version, is not good English at all. (It is absolutely biased when the translation is like the KJV.) It mixes a present tense verb with a past tense verb in a totally ungrammatical construction. What Jesus says is fine, idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order, and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression . (See Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, page 104.) These steps are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Many translations, except the NWT and the Living Bible, use a mangled word order. Because Greek idioms are different from English idioms, translators do not translate these expressions word-for-word, but rather convey the meaning of the Greek idiom in proper, comprehensible English. (At least that is what translators are supposed to do, and many Bible versions do that.)The closest we can get to what the Greek says in our own language is: "I have been since before Abraham came to be," paying attention to all parts of the sentence.

Then why do 95% of the 61 Bibles I checked, 58, use the exact term "I am”?

And while it's somewhat interesting, as mere opinion it doesn't carry any weight. Far better had you cited linkable, authoritative sources.

Both the NWT and the LB offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom.

"The Living Bible (TLB or LB) is a personal paraphrase, not a translation, of the Bible in English

Michael Marlowe criticized the edition, saying that it was "the dumbing-down of the Biblical text to a grade-school level" done "in keeping with the linguistic and educational trends of the time." He adds that "very few scholars have given any encouragement to its [The Living Bible] use, and most have either ignored it or have strictly warned against it." Moreover, he claims that the text of The Living Bible contains "venturesome interpretations that no scholar is likely to approve" and that " several places Taylor brazenly wrests the scripture so as to conform it to Arminian teachings about salvation."
[source: Wikipedia]

So, so much for the scholarship of the LB. And everyone knows the NWT was constructed so as to fit its theology. So both interpretations beg to be ignored, which I'm happy to do.

The other translations fail to do this.

And I would say "For good reason other translations chose not to do this"

Gotta say, although I do appreciate the trouble you've gone to present your case, because in scanning what follows

John 14:9 and John 15:27 have exactly the same construction as . . . .


. . . .can see that 1213 is not making up what he said.

I see it too lacks linkable, authoritative sources, so I'm going to pass on it all. Perhaps in the next discussion you'll provide sources we can check.

.

I provided the source of a Bible scholar (Jason BeDuhn) who is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He has no ax to grind and is just interested in the truth. He holds an MTS in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D in the comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (John Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the American Academy of Religion.

He is a knowledgeable scholar that knows what he's talking about. You will undoubtedly say that he doesn't, but that's your opinion.

(See Truth in Translation/ Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003 by University Press of America, Inc., 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suit 200)

And I said "linkable." I don't expect anyone to take unquoted and unlinked information as anything but opinion, in which case its merit rests on its source, coherence, and reasonableness.

.

I don't know how to do links, childish though that may be. The best I can do is the old-fashioned way of looking at the book itself.

In the interest of global harmony, simply copy the page's address from the address bar at the top of the page, in this case, "htps://debatingchristianity.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=38&p=1129943 (NOTE: I left out the second "t" in "https://" to help disable the linking function).

Then type in {url= (ALSO NOTE: For illustration purposes I'm forced to use curly brackets { &} instead of regular brackets [ &] to further disable the linking function. Always use regular brackets)

Followed by pasting in the address. Giving you

{url=htps://debatingchristianity.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=38&p=1129943

End this with a closing bracket }

{url= and insert the address: [url=htps://debatingchristianity.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=38&p=1129943}

at this point you can type in whatever you like. Usually, I just put in "source"

{url=htps://debatingchristianity.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=38&p=1129943} source

and close with {/url}

Giving you

{url=htps://debatingchristianity.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=38&p=1129943}source{/url}

And there you go, all up to speed.

.