A Leonardo da Vinci fingerprint identifies a valuable piece of his art-Can we find God's fingerprint in the Bible to identify his work?

The scripture is Romans 1:20- That is in The "New Testament"...more accurately known as the Christian Greek Scriptures...

All scripture is inspired of God, both "Old Testament" and "New Testament"

I am and have been trying to like you. :)

That would be their problem would it not?
Does that take away from God's fingerprint displayed in all Creation and his Word The Bible?

There is so much anger in the world.

Not to say that your angry.

Yes, there IS alot of anger in the world....that is why posting the exultation of The Creator of all life on this earth is a positive thing
[/youtube]

What you call the bible was a plagarism by the elites of the time who could read and write, when no one else could - hence the need for "preachers" to decode this mysterious shit that idiot humans copied from other idiot humans decades or hundreds of years prior. Case in point in how to program humans in modern times - Scientology. A fucking sci-fi writer creates a religion and we have millions and millions of these nutjobs running around now.

Accept the only ACTUAL fact we have now - no one knows for sure what happens when you die. The reincarnation thing does have some merit though and it has nothing to do with any religion.

dgn, just answer the question: "what do you think about Mantey's letter to the watchtower?"

[link to www.forananswer.org]
The Letter of Dr. Julius Mantey to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS
On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar


July 11, 1974

Dear Sirs:

I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.
(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity.
B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.
C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris.
(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.
(3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."
(4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.
(5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."
These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10)
The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word.
In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule."
On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher."
If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.
If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.

Regretfully yours,

Julius R. Mantey

The creators fingerprint is in the DNA of his creation.

How can you ignore the man the watchtower used to try to lend credibility to the NWT?

[link to www.forananswer.org]
The Letter of Dr. Julius Mantey to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
In Response to a Letter from the WTB&TS to CARIS
On the Use of the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar


July 11, 1974

Dear Sirs:

I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.
(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity.
B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.
C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris.
(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.
(3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."
(4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.
(5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."
These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10)
The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word.
In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule."
On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher."
If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.
If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.

Regretfully yours,

Julius R. Mantey

The creators fingerprint is in the DNA of his creation.

There are many lines of evidence proving Divine Inspiration:
But what is the "finger print" that ties it all together?

"All scripture is inspired of God......."- 2 Timothy 3:15

Is god's fingerprint pattern on file somewhere?

Gods fingerprint is that he's batshit crazy.
Seems to me that he doesn't trust anyone, always "testing" them, or at least that's the argument that gets thrown about to make up for innocent people being killed, children being abused, and the general fucked up shit that happens in the world.

Just look for the "I don't give a fuck" fingerprint. You'll know it's Gods.

Gods fingerprint is that he's batshit crazy.
Seems to me that he doesn't trust anyone, always "testing" them, or at least that's the argument that gets thrown about to make up for innocent people being killed, children being abused, and the general fucked up shit that happens in the world.

Just look for the "I don't give a fuck" fingerprint. You'll know it's Gods.

Yeah, borrow an electron microscope and read your dna.

But why are you quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 when this is exclusively referring to Hebrew scripture, and not a future New Testament, yet to be be finalized, compiled and canonized?

I do not really understand your question

2 Timothy specifies that ALL Scripture is inspired of God...both Hebrew and Greek scriptures

What scripture should I have quoted?

Comingling God with Da Vinci proves you a fool.

Da Vinci was a sodomite who was arrested several times over the course of his life for buggery, to include underage male prostitutes. He escaped the rap thanks to his influential connections.

You can quote which ever scripture you feel like, it still doesn't make that verse about the NT. It's just a grave misappropriation of its intent.

So the Bible ends with Malachi and that is it eh?


Dont tell Christ that

You can quote which ever scripture you feel like, it still doesn't make that verse about the NT. It's just a grave misappropriation of its intent.

There is a miraculous code in the Hebrew Bible that reveals the identity of the Messiah.

[link to www.11-11.tv]