Another Trinity Argument

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Cristo, Sep 10, 2018.

  1. 191
    37
    28
    Cristo

    Cristo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi...

    I was watching a youtube video the other day about a preacher who believed in the Trinity(obviously), and he was giving his arguments for it. Of course the same scriptures are always used to go back and forth for both sides and usually the people just agree to disagree. At least that has usually been my experience when debating with somebody about the trinity. However as I was listening to the video talking about "firstborn" and how they justify their belief something occurred to me.

    You see trinitarians cannot believe that Jesus was Gods first creation, or firstborn, because that would mean that he was not eternal, which he MUST be in order for the trinity to be true. So my question to them is this: Then who IS???
    Who IS the firstborn creation of God if Jesus isn't? Who is the BEGINNING of creation by God?

    I mean obviously there would be a firstborn right?

    I think this may be a difficult argument for them to overcome, for if Jesus wasn't Gods first creation, then somebody else is. This would mean of course that Jesus wasn't first in ALL things. I'm not sure how a trinitarian could overcome that reasoning.

    (Col 1:18) “.18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things;

    I wanted to get some opinions, maybe some devils advocate to try to overcome that reasoning point. I can't think of any....
     
    ExLuther and SingleCell like this.
  2. 2,413
    749
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hi Cristo,
    It is not likely that you will be able to refute the Trinity believers mindset. I always quote the words from the song; “The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkel. “a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. Lie, lie, lie,.” My wife says, “If Jesus was GOD, what prevented Satan from taking over while He was dead?” I have posted several places about this subject. Do a search on the word “prototokos”.
    It will list 11 headings on the subject. There is enough information that should stop the idiocy of a Trinity, or Jesus being GOD. The other part of the Trinity doctrine is the spirit being a distinct “personage” of GOD.

    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” ( Gen 1:2 DNKJB )

    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” ( Gen 1:2 KJV )

    It will make no difference which version or translation you use, because all are pretty much the same.
    The Point to make is this: If the Spirit of God is a “personage” of GOD, is HE flying over the water? Is HE now a separate person from GOD?

    The argument that usually stuns them is this: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” ( Mt 1:18 KJV )

    “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” ( Mt 1:20 KJV )

    The other account is the announcement to Zacharias about his wife Elisabeth being pregnant by the Holy Ghost. “For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.” ( Lu 1:15 KJV )

    Here is where it gets “hairy”. If the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit is a personage of the Trinity, then HE had sex, not only with Mary, but Elisabeth also. Sex with two different women, six months apart. So, Elisabeth and Mary were “baby mommy’s”. EEEKKKK!

    This is where the Babylonian sophist idea of a three-part GOD got it’s start. The Trinity is a philosophic idea that is found in many other early societies. It’s most influential society was the Greeks, followed by the Romans.
     
    SingleCell likes this.
  3. 191
    37
    28
    Cristo

    Cristo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I disagree. Yes some trinitarians have an unchangeable mindset regardless of what you show them, however, i'm certain there are those who just haven't heard the right argument yet, or line of reasoning. Many people want the truth and are willing to critically examine their thoughts regarding the trinity.

    Although your arguments above have validity to them, I prefer to keep it as simple as possible. In fact I'm certain i've seen you recommend the K.I.S.S. analogy many times. So.....

    In my 30+ years of debating on the trinity, i've never heard an argument as simple as the one above regarding the firstborn. IF Jesus is NOT the firstborn(just preeminent as trinitarians teach) then WHO WAS? (k.i.s.s.)

    In fact it's one of the only questions I can think of that the trinitarian will not be able to find some rebuttal to because obviously the bible doesn't say somebody else is the firstborn. Which is why it is so powerful.

    Followed up with the reasoning point that if somebody else was created first besides Jesus, then Jesus CANNOT be first in ALL things. Col 1:18. Again......simple.
     
    ExLuther and Tsaphah like this.
  4. 2,413
    749
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Hi Cristo,
    Here is one argument for Jesus being “firstborn”, and “God” at the same time. This is rather lengthy, so I will give the corresponding web location at the bottom. It covers all of Colossians 1.
    I don’t believe a word of it. To many persons it may sound logical, but to me it is philosophical rhetoric.

    The Adam Clarke Commentary

    THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
    http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=1&verse=18#Col1_18

    Copyright Statement
    The Adam Clarke Commentary is a derivative of an electronic edition prepared by GodRules.net.

    Bibliography Information
    Clarke, Adam. “Commentary on Colossians 1”. “The Adam Clarke Commentary”. http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=001
     
  5. 2,413
    749
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many scriptures that can be used to challenge the “idea” of a “Trinity”, or that GOD is three parts as in, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” ( 1 Joh 2:1 KJV ) If Jesus Christ is GOD, why is it necessary for him to speak to himself as Son to Father?

    If Jesus is GOD, was he talking to himself here? ( Mt 27:46 )
    If Jesus is GOD, what prevented Satan from taking over all creation while Jesus was dead? ( Mt 27:50, 57-60 )

    If Jesus is GOD, how could Satan offer to give him all the kingdoms of the world if HE already owned them? ( Lu 4:5-7 ) And, was Satan asking GOD to worship him=Satan? ( Lu 4:7 ) And, If Jesus is GOD, why did he tell Satan “for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” ( Lu 4:8 ) Did not Satan know who GOD was?

    The first defense of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century (200 to 300 AD) by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended his theology against "Praxeas", though he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine. (Just one source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity )

    About Tertullian:
    http://www.tertullian.org/readfirst.htm#2

    http://www.tertullian.org/works.htm

     
  6. 2,413
    749
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” ( Joh 20:17 KJV )

    Who was Jesus talking about? According to those who believe in a trinity ( 3 in 1 GOD ), He is all of the above: Christ, Father/GOD/Holy Spirit !!! But wait: He is his own Father. He is his own Son. He is his own Holy Spirit. All three in one, whenever and whatever He chooses to be. It’s like putting on a different suit each time.

    Imagine this scene: Jesus and his disciples are sitting and talking. Jesus asked them, “. . . who do you say that I am?Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” What did Jesus say? “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” It appears that Jesus had on His Christ suit, at that time. It also appears that Jesus was in heaven as the Father when He revealed Himself to Peter as the Father.

    That scripture at John 20:17 must have had a word mistranslated. That word was “ascend”. It should have been “changed”. Ha Ha Ha, in more ways than one. Get it?? :eek: ;) :rolleyes:
     
  7. 191
    37
    28
    Cristo

    Cristo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Again...good information T, but not simple enough for the trinitarian to take the time and ponder on. Most if not all the arguments you present have rebuttals to them by a studied trinitarian.

    Why not just ask if Jesus wasn't the beginning of creation then WHO was?
     
  8. 2,413
    749
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    o_O You will NEVER convert a believer in the Trinity. You could say; They are Pig Headed! :eek: And blind!
     
  9. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    I wish there was a path to opening the eyes of Christians unto truths of Scripture. At times I feel as though the current state of things is a matter of our modern information world, and other times as though it is simply human nature.

    Two examples I think of when this subject comes to mind:

    I have seen many new ones learning of the milk of Scripture, simply to go onto head strong ideas, closed eared if you will. It's as though the psyche only allows one to believe what they see before them; and as I think back on my own journey through the text, I have been guilty of this very thing myself.

    As well, with so much division within understanding the text, many times ones stance in understanding is simply based on their source of information, regardless of accuracy. To me it is disappointing because of my love of the Word, and my jealousy for it; however, there is no way our LORD would not have known the state of the Bible today.

    Or perhaps it is just a matter of the complexity of the text.

    The next example I think of is the middle ages:

    The Catholic church had a tight grip on what people heard from the text. No translations were allowed in the common languages, and when one heard the Word, it was highly regulated by those who had charge over the peoples.

    Was this system any better then what we have today? With two extremes we have on one hand a complete totalitarian dissemination of Spiritual knowledge, while on the other a complete open door for a billion differing views, depending on the number of individual readers.

    I highly cherish the understanding I have currently been given within the text. It is a treasure beyond my ability to vocalize, for within this knowledge contains the very proof of God himself; but, without being able to ingrain that knowledge into others, of what reason do I contain it? Surely such a vast undertaking spanning decades is not for my own benefit, and so here in lies the only outcome I can foresee.

    It would appear to me, just as the powers of the two witnesses match the plagues of Egypt, the only thing that will convince the world we live in, is fulfillment.

    May God's will; however, be done...

    PS: This subject has been one that has heavily weighed on my mind lately, and I just wasn't sure how to justify it, so I decided to follow what I believed is our Fathers direction. I have begun writing a book to all Christians. I am 2/3 through a 50k word work, that discusses many of the subjects that are so commonly misunderstood within the Bible. The difference being, I am writing to all Christians without denominational identity, and without using the name of Jehovah, directly. It will however contain a chapter on God's name, but I'm interested in seeing if I can reach a large audience by writing without the ability of the reader to identify any denomination, and to make sure it's content applies to all.

    In the end, if it be by Jehovah's will, it will have success in some manner he wishes.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
    Tricky Sam and Tsaphah like this.
  10. 2,413
    749
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know what you mean brother. My family tried for many years to reach me. They were Jehovah's Witnesses. I hated receiving the Awake and Watchtower in the mail, when I was in the military. I resisted for many years afterward. Jehovah never gave up on me. As I look back, I now see His hand in arranging my life. I'm pretty hard headed. :eek:

    I love the cover of your book. I can hardly wait for your it. Arriving at a particular way of writing is hard. Especially trying to not influence a person by a specific doctrine. Let the word speak for itself. I was recently reading a book on philosophy and came across this statement by Voltaire.

    “I am tired of all these people who govern states from the recesses of their garrets*; these legislators who rule the world at two cents a sheet;... unable to govern their wives or their households they take great pleasure in regulating the universe. It is impossible to settle these matters with simple and general formulae, or by dividing all people into fools and knaves on the one hand, and on the other, ourselves. Truth has not the name of a party”; and he writes to Vauvenargues: “It is the duty of a man like you to have preferences, but not exclusions.” (Quotation by Voltaire)
    Durant, Will (2014-02-06). The Story of Philosophy (p. 102). Kindle Edition.

    * Garret = a room or unfinished part of a house just under the roof; attic, cockloft, loft.

    Vauvenargues: = Luc de Clapiers, marquis de Vauvenargues was a French writer and moralist. He died at age 31, in broken health, having published the year prior—anonymously—a collection of essays and aphorisms with the encouragement of Voltaire, his friend.

    “Wicked people are always surprised to find ability in those that are good.”

    “All grand thoughts come from the heart.”

    “Patience is the art of hoping.”

    Keep up the good work my friend. In your chapter about God’s Name, be sure to mention that other names used in the Bible are not pronounced as the original name was. But, the general public accepts the modern day pronunciation. Examples are: Jesus, John, Moses, Ezekiel, Matthew, etc. Even YHWH, Jehovah, I AM, are not according to the original. :)



     
  11. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Absolutely, even given differing languages today that pronounce the Jehovah form we most commonly use here.

    Too many people seem to get caught up in the name of God debate. It doesn't need to be as problematic as many attempt to make it. The importance is simply not in the pronunciation...

    Thank you, thank you... I am working on it, but as I am sure you are aware; A project like this takes time, and a lot of brain power...lol

    All love brother...
     
  12. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    By the way brother, I am using the KJV rules on LORD and Lord, in my work. All capital for JHVH in my book is more rare then my use of God; but, it's there...

    I likewise speak of Christ Jesus, as Lord...

    I have the final chapter left, other then some minor editing on my part. It's entitled, "Who is God?" This is the chapter I will write about Jehovah's name.

    I am probably going to be closer to 40k words, then 50k, but the context is condensed in places, while others are light and story. I would like to think even artistic here and there as well. Ha

    It's getting fun toward the end...
     
  13. 2,413
    749
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Whoa, or should that be Woe? “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.” ( Rev 1:1a NKJV )

    How does this work? Trinity! If Jesus is God, why does God have to give him “The revelation”? Shouldn’t Jesus already have the information of what is to happen? But wait! It also says: “And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,” ( Rev 1:1b NKJV ) Whose angel is it? It all depends on how you read it. The answer is in verse 3.

    So, “The Revelation” is from both God, and Jesus Christ. Oh, yeah. It is also “shown/signified” to John, by the angel. The angel can be compared to a projectionist at a movie theater. As John “observes” these visions, he writes them down, to the seven churches.
    ( Rev 1:4 )

    Many teach that John was a prisoner on Patmos *. I believe that to be false. Nowhere does it say that he was a prisoner. It says he was: “. . on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” He was there to preach “the word of God”, and “the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

    Coffman Commentaries states: “. . .in John’s day it is said to have been principally a rock quarry and used as a place of banishment for certain types of offenders.” “Regarding the tradition that the apostle John was banished to Patmos, living in exile there when he received the Revelation, both the event of his banishment and the date of it are uncertain. The usual tradition that he was banished to Patmos by Domitian (c. 95 A.D.) and released 18 months later by Nerva is incapable of any dogmatic proof. Even if accepted, the question of the date would still be in doubt.”

    Then, the conjecture begins. “The complicating factor is that Domitian was the de facto emperor for a year or so in 69-70, following his father Vespasian's elevation as Emperor, July 69 A.D.”

    It was recorded that the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 66 A.D./C.E., or there about. It even runs to 70 A.D./C.E. If these dates are used, they fail. None of the writers of the Greek scriptures mention the destruction of Jerusalem. Not even John! This is especially troublesome because it is tradition that John wrote the Revelation in 70-71 A.D./C.E. or 95-96 A.D./C.E. This is depending on the “tradition” of when Domitian, or Vespasian attacked Jerusalem. It is also suggested that John wrote the Revelation when he was 90 years old.

    Coffman also states: “Regarding the theory of John's having been banished to Patmos, the New Testament gives no hint of any such thing, but the mention of tribulation in the same verse certainly seems not opposed to the tradition.”

    Tradition:
    a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom)

    b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable.

    He was also saying to them, ‘You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.’” ( Mr 7:9 NASB )

    “. . .thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” ( Mr 7:12 NASB )

    Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles ) :)


     
  14. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Interesting... I guess I had never thought about it before. The Greek word used in 1:9 is dia, carrying the meaning of through, or because.

    Idk if you've ever seen this before, but this is a one take stage performance from Dean Jones, who plays John on Patmos. It is a wonderful performance...

     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2019
  15. 2,413
    749
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WOW!! What a great performance! Academy Award for sure. I had never heard of this. Thank You, for giving me the opportunity of seeing it. I will share it with my other friends and family. :D:):)
     
  16. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    It's a wonderful performance that I watch many times...

    Brother, I would like to ask your opinion on something that is in conjunction with this thread.

    Here is an excerpt from my book that I would like your commentary on. What do you think of my summation?

    "Someone might say: “But Joshua, doesn’t John 1:3 indicate that Jesus never had a beginning? “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (Jhn 1:3) This word translated here as without, is the Greek word chōris. This word carries the meaning of apart from, or besides, as well as without. Another location of this Greek word chōris, can be found here: “They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.” (Mth 14:20,21) Here, the word used as besides is used to denote the understanding of in exception of, and is the same Greek word used in John 1:3. With this definition, one could read that Scripture as, “Besides him, nothing was made that has been made.” Far from saying the Word was not created, this simply implies that with the exception of himself, all things were made through him."

    I thought about adding:

    "Another example of the exclusion form of the word chōris, is found here: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it.” (Rom 3:21) (ESV) Again, indicating the meaning of excluding the subject."

    Edit: This same usage is found at 2 Cor 11:28. "Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches."
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
  17. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Or... Do you think I should use the Watchtowers punctuation explanation?

    "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men." (Jhn 1:3,4) (NWT)

    "John 1:3

    What has come into existence: The earliest Greek manuscripts do not have any punctuation in verses 3 and 4. The punctuation used in the New World Translation is according to the scholarly editions of the Greek text published by Westcott and Hort, the United Bible Societies, and Nestle and Aland. The last part of verse 3 is linked with verse 4. This rendering indicates that life and light came into existence by means of the Word. (Col 1:15, 16) Some translations follow another understanding of the Greek text and connect the last part of verse 3 with the preceding words, conveying the idea “and apart from him not even one thing came into existence that has come into existence.” However, many scholars support the reading of the New World Translation." (JW.org)
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
  18. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    I've stayed up all night researching the original Greek. I don't know if it's because I'm about to pass out, or it's because I believe I finally cracked it.

    John 1:3 states, "came into being" three times. What if the last occurrence is speaking of the first; inferring to those, "through him?"

    Maybe the verse isn't talking about ALL things that came into being, but only those things through him. One could keep chōris as without at that point.

    Goodnight...
     
  19. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Okay, I just can't go to sleep until I translate these verses as they actually should be...

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God. Through him all things were created, and without him not even one thing came into being, that were created through him." (AJ)

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God. For the sake of him all things were created, and without him not even one thing came into being, that were created for him." (AJ)

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with the God. On account of him all things were created, and without him not even one thing came into being, that were created on account of him." (AJ)

    It appears that each of these translations are correct, in combination...

    "For from him and through him and to him are all things." (Rom 11:36) (ESV)
     
  20. 3,786
    702
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Hey brother, I was just thinking, and I believe I have proof my assumption is correct!

    If you add the first two words of verse four to the end of verse three, "en autō", then that literally translates "through him" or, "In him, "by him."

    Verse four shouldn't read, "In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind." It should read, "Life came about, and that life was the light of mankind."

    The first two words of verse four should be at the end of verse three; because, verse three is talking about creation through him!

    That's it...

    AJ
     

Share This Page