God has all attributes including evil iniquity.

Interpret it the way You want, or find a version that suits you needs.

Again, thanks

So why am I offering to use a translation of your choice, not mine? That proves the exact opposite of what you claim.

I don't interpret that bible, that's where so many go wrong. The secret is to let it interpret itself.

Because you will interpret any version I pick.

You really are wriggling aren't ypu, lol.

The problem is that statements like.

1 Peter 1:3(KJV) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

and

Colossians 1:15(KJV) 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

aren't open to interpretation, they are blank and plain statements of fact which contradict any thought of the trinity at all. It is you and yours who are twisting and changing the meanings of scripture, not me.

You ignore the truth of things like that at your peril, let alone the risk of demonstrating the obvious bias in your interpretation of things.

OK MCB I will bite:

1st we set the parameters:

A) We are going to use the english language

B) Oxford English definition of "interpret":

1. † in?terpret, n. 1584
...An interpreter....

2. interpret, v. c1380
...trans. To expound the meaning of (something abstruse or mysterious); to render (words, writings, an author, etc.) clear or explicit; to elucidate; to explain. †Formerly, also, To translate (now only contextually,...

3. You have said that you "don't interpret that bible", so you are not allowed to interpret.

4. You told me to select a version, here it is:

Colossians 1:13-15
New King James Version (NKJV)
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood,[a] the forgiveness of sins.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Now, this variation says "firstborn over all creation".

Now prove that this passage means that Jesus was the first born of all creation.
Not first created but first born .

Remember... you are not allowed to interpret the bible .

I don't need to interpret, there is no other way you can understand that scripture.

Any other meaning can only be down to a desire to interpret it to fit doctrine.

first·born? ?[furst-bawrn], adjective
1.
first in the order of birth; eldest.

Therefore Jesus is the eldest "over all creation" which not only means he was before it all, but that he had a beginning, which God does not.

An interesting side point, lol,

https://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp

and

https://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

You complain about the NWT translators having changed things, lol, apparently the NKJV is not liked at all for that very reason.

Every translation you cite, apart from a very few have been changed to prove a doctrine, simply by removing Gods name, which depsite your protestations we do know because it is in scripture based on YHWH, the transliteration of the tetragrammaton.

Interstingly enough you use the shortform of that Holy name every time you say "Hallelujah" which translated means "Holy (or Hallowed) be Jah" and Jah is the recognised shortform of Jehovah.

Strange that churches that deny God's name then sign a prayer for it's being made holy isn't it?

It does not say first born.

It says "first born over".

You are taking the phrase "first born" out of context. You are "interpreting" the passage to say that Jesus "is the first born", but that is not what it says.

It says "first born over all creation".

Since Jesus was the 1st begotten son of god, he is the "first born (of god)" and has the power/authority "over" all other creation.

It does not say that he was the first thing that was ever born. In fact, based on the bible we have all of the generations from Adam to Joseph, who were "born" prior to Jesus.

YOU INTERPRET IT THE WAY YOU WANT.

Thank you again.

As another example. I am the first born in my family with a college education.

Not the first born in my family...that is my brother, for my core family. But even he is not the first born in the family.... that would someone way back in time.

I am in fact, I am the fourth born.

HOWEVER, I am the first born in the entire history of my family with a college education.

Two different things... being "first" and being "first over..."

It still says he was the firstborn. You are the one who is interpreting it to suit yourself. You took the scripture out of context yourself.

Are you so desperate to prove yourself right? You're not doing a very good job of it.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of critising one organisation for using an altered translation and then insisting on doing the same yourself.

The NKJV is provably altered, as is the KJV and many other translations which have chosen to remove God's name. That is an indistputable fact. Oh, you can come out with lame excuses like "why include something we don't know", but they are lame because we do know.

Do you know real Jesus name, his Hebrew name? He was a practising Jew, brought up as a practising Jew. In order to be registered at the temple, as all Jews ad to be, he would have had to have a Hebrew name. Do you have any idea what that was?

I can tell you what it was. Jesus is the English (latinised) version. In Greek it is ??????? Iesoun or Iesous. In Hebrew it was ???? which transliterates as Yeshua or Jeshua, and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”. You just can't escape God's Holy Name, try as you might.

What is the difference between using an "other language" translation of his name and using an "other language" translation of God's Holy Name?

Why pray for God's name to be sanctified if you have removed it from your bibles?

The questions go on, and unless you can find answers for them, real answers then you are a hypocrite for criticising those that do.

I have deliberately dealt with this part separately.

As you point out very carefully, he was the first son of God. That makes him a son of God before all others were sons of God, which puts him as a son of God before the angels were, and they are all called sons of God, as are humans.

Yes he has authority over all creation. He himself said he was given that authority, therefore he must have had a superior to give him it or it would have been his by right. Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (KJV)

You argue against yourself, if only you would stop and listen to yourself. Stop repeating the "party line" and think for yourself, I did, as a child and have never regretted it, that's how I came to be as I am, with God's help.

There are so many scriptures which show Jesus to have been subservient to his Father before he came to earth, most of which were said by Jesus himself. Whose word will you take? That of Jesus or that of men? Which is lying in your opinion? Jesus or men?

After all, he did say that he could do nothing of his own origination but only that which his Father taught him.

No it doesn't.

You choose to INTERPRET it that way because it fits what you WANT to believe.

Because it helps you INTERPRET it they way YOU WANT.

You Infidels can fuss and debate all you want....












..but there is only one true Cod