(1)
Study the history of the word
Open Godhead and
you will be enlightened
to the fact that (the word Godhead)
is not an original Bible Manuscript word
(2)
But a Fabrication Open Godhead representatives
of a large class of abstract substantives, Compare (open Implied)
Act 17:29 "Being
then
the children
of God,
we ought
not to think
that the Divine
Nature
is like
gold or silver or stone,
an image formed by
the art
and thought
of man.
Godhead is an mental Image formed by
the art
and thought
of man—Study
Open Acts 17:29
Imaginations
of God’s Head Open Image GOD or god-JehovahOrYahwe
h
Enter Godhead into the search engine AT http://www.searchgodsword.org For TNASB/W/Strongs –
Here’s
what you get
Your query for 'Godhead'
in 'The New American Standard Bible' failed to return any verse results.
Please modify your query and try again.---
SBT Note --- You get this because the Word Godhead shouldn’t be
in any Bible to Explain YHWH— 010.htm
Godhead means more then One --Yahweh is not a group.
Godhead is
an image formed by the art and thought of man—Study Open Acts 17:29
Godhead Is Intentionally Used By the
Trinity/Oneness Movement Theology ---worded as such to promote an
Unbiblical Word or phase to fit the group of Two or
Three in One uncreated beings ---The Mystery Group--Study AFact.htm
& PreExistenceOfChrist.htm.
Divine Nature-Not Godhead in NAS-BIBLE and
many other Newly
Revised Bibles
open Acts17:29
Divine Nature –not the Word Godhead
"Being
then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone,
an image formed by the art and thought of man---See more examples below
a.
of idolatrous images -Images
Note
That Jesus is the image of God –an image is not the original
--STUDY -Images &Oneness.htm
As a human son may closely resemble his father in
various ways, this heavenly Son reflectes his Father’s qualities and personality. Col 1:15
He is
the “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) This means that Jesus is the only
one directly created by God. Jesus is also the only one whom God used when He created all
other things. (Colossians
1:16 - Prov8-22.htm ) Then,
too, Jesus is called “the Word.” (John 1:14) This tells us that he spoke for
God, no doubt delivering messages and instructions to the Father’s other sons,
both spirit and human.
.Begotten Has Been Removed From Many Newly Revised Trinitarian/Oneness Bibles
Compare B2.S
Bibles
|
What Happened to the Words Only Begotten in most New
Trinitarian/Oneness Bibles –Study the List
|
|
In
ComputerCheck.htm & JOHN3-16.htm—INCLUDES
Jn1-18 and other verses.
|
STUDY--ID of Imaginations of God’s Head--Images.htm
Compare all good Dictionaries---OPEN BestBibleDictionariesPLUS.htm
And Bible Translations—in BestBiblesPlus.htm
---And See Who is Doing it Right !!!!
Divine Nature-Not Godhead NASB Acts17:29
"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man
You can do this with each one of the Bibles in SearchGodsWord.org---
Example (2) Enter Godhead KJV/W/Strongs--And Click on --Original Greek---and
see what you get
Example KJV
http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?l=en&query=Godhead§ion=0&translation=str&sr=1&Enter=Perform+Search
The Dictionary doesn’t Recognize
Godhead as part of |Original Greek]
KJV—Has 3 Verses
Open
Ac 17:29 - Ro 1:20 - Col
2:9 –
YOU GET THIS
Changes Form --
Note --That YHWH (Jehovah in English) Jehovah can cause 010.htm (accomplish) anything He Wills ---But It Is Unscriptural
That He Changes Himself (to make Himself) into the Person of Jesus at
anytime ( Study AAIsJesusRealToYouPart2.htm
& Part 1 in A + SatanAndJesus.htm)
that would make Jesus not a real being of Himself –Jn 5:26.- 010.htm.
Mal
3:16
Then those who feared the (Open) LORD
spoke to one another, and the LORD gave attention and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for
those who fear the LORD and who esteem His name.
Mal
3:6
"For
I, the (Open) LORD,--(Jehovah)
do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
)l bq(y (8804) eT)w (8804) ytyn$ )l hwhy yn)
yK
. etylk
Who is The ALPHAandTheOMEGA.htm
COMPARE The
Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias--- Open Dictionary-Example.htm
SearchGodsWord.org---Dictionary
Reads as Follows
(1)-a general name of deities
or divinities as used by the Greeks
SBT Note --- as used by the
Greeks The
Hebrews—Didn’t use the Word---- Godhead --Pagans Had gods with many
heads
YHWH is One Head –Undivided
(2)--spoken of the only and
true God, trinity -----
- of
Christ
- Holy
Spirit
- the
Father
SBT—Noticed The Accuracy of The Words ***Spoken
of*** In No 2
The Question IS *** Spoken
of By Who ?***
The Same People That
Speak These Unscriptural Words
Non-Biblical Words and
Phrases –To
Try to Control People with Them-- Here are Some
Spoken of BY Oneness and Tri-Phantom God --So Called
Theologians--- God the Son,-God-Man,-God
begat God ,- Jesus is God,
The Holy Spirit is God in the 3rd Person--Jesus eternally
existed as one with the Father, Not make or Created out of any act of will by the Father, The Son is equal or co-equal to the Father,
God came in the flesh,. God sacrificed himself to himself. God is three in one,
God is two in One. One and One is One --Three in one is One. One and One and Onne equals One.
None of these Words or Phases exists in God’s Inspired written Vocabulary Open UnbiblicalWordsThatInvalidateGodsWords.htm
AND BestStatementFound.htm
De 33:26
"There is none like the God of Jeshurun, Who rides the heavens to your help,
And through the skies in His majesty.
eyqx$ wtw)gbW jrz(b eym$ bekr (8802) aWrU$y le)K aye)
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0410&l=en
"There
is none like the God of Jeshurun,
Strong’s
o410
- god, god-like one, mighty one
- mighty men, men of
rank, mighty heroes
- angels
- god, false god,
(demons, imaginations)
- God, the one true God, Jehovah
- mighty things in nature
- strength, power
II) (a)
Hence the word was appropriated by Jews and retained by Christians to denote
"the one true God." In the Sept. theos translates (with few exceptions) the Hebrew
words Elohim and Jehovah, the former
indicating His power and preeminence, the latter His unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-sustained
existence. Open http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines?tofrom=G
– Open god
Open the Links Without links
to names]
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words
[Without links
to names] [With
Easton] [With
Nave] [With
Torrey] [X]
[With
Webster dictionary] [With
Roget's thesaurus] [With
->German] [With
->German2] [With
->Russian] [With
->French] [With
->Estonian] [X]
Myths-For
The
Biggest of Them All --Open-- MythsAndMythology.htm
-Sbt Note –The Christian-Trinity God was Invented—and
Approved—But Not Proved in 381 A.D -and
about---292 Years After Jesus’ Death--
Jesus was Declared BY Man –Not by YHWH to be God.
The word Godhead is still
around today intentionally to promote the Trinity—(OpenTrindirty.htm )
If any modern Bible
or Commentator uses the word Godhead he is most likely
Trinity Bias----Proceed
with caution or find another commentary that doesn’t use that word or explains
why he is.OPEN Commentaries.htm
The KJV Bible is Recognized as being the most
inaccurate English Bible Version in use today—
Introductory remarks: Recognizing the contribution of
the King James Version
Open--http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm
Read the Colwell
Bible Test in-- BestBiblesComingInTheFuture..> and
for interested advanced Students who really care about a list of
verses in most Bibles that have been
intentionally rendered in away to infer the wrong meaning--- you will want to
study the following Pages
with a great passion and Compare (all
verses listed) with your Favorite Bible 1Tim316.htm-- BiblePunctuationMarksPLUS.htm
TrinitarianBiasTestPLUSmore.htm
--and Compare what you find with the 1st&ammp;<
group of Bibles listed in BestBiblesPlus.htm
Repeat-COMPARE The All Good
Bible Dictionaries and
Godhead ----- is only another way of saying “God,”
a
simple meaning
Learn how One God became 3 –to some---Focus on what Paul was explaining and
How Some read more in to it—and why most Bibles use a
different WORD
History Lesson
Some
Key Points Bolden Underlined .ect We left most for you to do
!!
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
ISBE http://studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3857
(Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9),
god´hed: The word “Godhead” is a simple
doublet of the less frequently occurring “Godhood.” Both forms stand side by
side in the Ancren Riwle (about 1225 ad), and both have
survived until today, though not in equally common use. They are
representatives of a large class of abstract substantives, formed with the
suffix “-head” or “-hood”, most of which formerly occurred in both forms almost
indifferently, though the majority of them survive only, or very preponderatingly (except in
Scottish speech), in the form -hood. The two suffixes appear in Middle English
as “-hêde” and “-hôd”, and presuppose in the
Anglo-Saxon which lies behind them a feminine haéda (which is not actually known) by
the side of the masculine hád. The Anglo-Saxon word “was
originally a distinct substantive, meaning 'person, personality, sex,
condition, quality, rank'” (Bradley, in A New English Dict. on a Historical Basis, under the word
“-hood”), but its use as a suffix early superseded its separate employment. At
first -hêde appears to have been appropriated
to adjectives, -hôd to substantives; but, this
distinction breaking down and the forms coming into indiscriminate use, -hêde grew obsolete, and remains in
common use only in one or two special forms, such as “Godhead,” “maidenhead”
(Bradley, as cited, under the word “-head”).
The
general elimination of the forms in -head has been followed by a fading
consciousness, in the case of the few surviving instances in this form, of the
qualitative sense inherent in the suffix. The words accordingly show a tendency
to become simple denotatives.
Thus, “the Godhead” is frequently employed merely as a somewhat strong synonym
of “God” although usually with more or less emphasis upon that in God which
makes Him God. One of its established usages is to denote the Divine essence as
such, in distinction from the three “hypostases” or “persons” which share its
common possession in the doctrine of the Trinity. This usage is old: Bradley
(op. cit.) is able to adduce instances from the 13th century. In this usage the
word has long held the rank of a technical term, e.g. the Thirty-Nine Articles
of the Church of England, 1571, Art. I: “And in the unity of this Godhead,
there be three persons” (compare the Irish Articles of 1615, and the
Westminster Confession, II, 3); Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 6: “There are
three persons in the Godhead.” Pursuant to the fading of the qualitative sense
of the word, there has arisen a tendency, when the qualitative consciousness is
vivid, to revive the obsolescent “Godhood,” to take its place; and this
tendency naturally shows itself especially when the contrast with humanity is
expressed. Carlyle, for example (French Revolution, III, Book vi, chapter iv, section 1), speaking of the
posthumous reaction against Marat,
writes: “Shorter godhood had no divine man”; and Phillips Brooks (Sermons,
XIII, 237) speaks of Christ bridging the gulf “between the Godhood and the
manhood.” “Godhood” seems, indeed, always to have had a tendency to appear in
such contrasts, as if the qualitative consciousness were more active in it than
in “Godhead.” Thus, it seems formerly to have suggested itself almost as
inevitably to designate the Divine nature of Christ, as “Godhead” did to
designate the common Divine essence of the Trinity. Bradley cites instances
from 1563 down.
The
fundamental meaning of “Godhead” is, nevertheless, no less than that of
“Godhood,” the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists
would say, of God. As manhood is that which
makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead
is that which makes God, God. When we ascribe Godhead to a being,
therefore, we affirm that all that enters into the idea of God belongs to Him.
“Godhead” is thus the Saxon equivalent of the Latin “Divinity,” or, as it is
now becoming more usual to say, “Deity.” Like these terms it is rendered
concrete by prefixing the article to it. As “the Divinity,” “the Deity,” so
also “the Godhead”
is only another way of saying “God,” except that when we say “the
Divinity,” “the Deity,” “the Godhead,” we are saying “God” more abstractly and
more qualitatively, that is with more emphasis, or at least with a more lively
consciousness, of the constitutive qualities which make God the kind of being
we call “God.”
The word
“Godhead” occurs in the King James Version only 3 times (Act_17:29; Rom_1:20;
Col_2:9), and oddly enough it
translates in these 3 passages, 3 different, though closely related, Greek
words, τὸ θεῖον, tó theíon θειότης, theiótēs, θεότης, theótēš.
To theion means “that which is Divine,”
concretely, or, shortly, “the Deity.” Among the Greeks it was in
constant use in the sense of “the Divine Being,” and particularly
as a general term to designate the Deity apart from reference to a particular
god. It is used by Paul (Act_17:29) in
an address made to a heathen audience, and is inserted into a context in
which it is flanked by the simple term “God” (ὁ
Θεός, ho theós) on both sides. It is obviously
deliberately chosen in order to throw up into emphasis the qualitative idea of
God; and this emphasis is still further heightened by the direct contrast into
which it is brought with the term “man.” “Being, then, the offspring of God, we
ought not to think that it is to gold or silver or stone graven by art and
device of man that the Godhead is like.” In an effort to bring
out this qualitative emphasis, the Revised Version, margin suggests that we
might substitute for “the Godhead” here the periphrastic rendering, “that which
is Divine.” But this seems both clumsy and ineffective for its purpose. From
the philological standpoint, “the Godhead” is very fair equivalent for to theion, differing as it does from the
simple “God” precisely by its qualitative emphasis. It may be doubted, however,
whether in the partial loss by “Godhead” of its qualitative force in its
current usage, one of its synonyms, “the Divinity” (which is the rendering here
of the Rhemish version) or
“the Deity,” would not better convey Paul's emphasis to modern readers.
Neither
of these terms, “Divinity,” “Deity,” occurs anywhere in the King James Version,
and “Deity” does not occur in the Revised Version (British and American)
either; but the Revised Version (British and American) (following the Rhemish version) substitutes
“Dignity” for “Godhead” in Rom_1:20. Of
the two, “Dignity” was originally of the broader connotation; in the days of
heathendom it was applicable to all grades of Divine beings. “Deity” was
introduced by the Christian Fathers for the express purpose of providing a
stronger word by means of which the uniqueness of the Christians' God should be
emphasized. Perhaps “Divinity” retains even in its English usage something of
its traditional weaker connotation, although, of course, in a monotheistic
consciousness the two terms coalesce in meaning. There exists a tendency to
insist, therefore, on the “Deity” of Christ, rather than his mere “Divinity,”
in the feeling that “Divinity” might lend itself to the notion that Christ
possessed but a secondary or reduced grade of Divine quality. In Act_17:29 Paul is not discriminating between
grades of Divinity, but is
preaching monotheism. In this context, then, to theion does not lump together “all that
is called God or is worshipped,” and declare that all that is in any sense
Divine should be esteemed beyond the power of material things worthily to
represent. Paul has the idea of God at its height before his mind, and having
quickened his hearers' sense of God's exaltation by his elevated description of
Him, he demands of them whether this Deity can be fitly represented by any art
of man working in dead stuff. He uses the term to theion, rather than ho theos, not merely in courteous adoption
of his hearers' own language, but because of its qualitative emphasis. On the
whole, the best English translation of it would probably be “the Deity.” “The
Godhead” has ceased to be sufficiently qualitative: “the Godhood” is not sufficiently
current: “the Divine” is not sufficiently personal: “the Divinity” is perhaps
not sufficiently strong: “Deity” without the article loses too much of its
personal reference to compensate for the gain in qualitativeness: “the Deity” alone seems fairly to
reproduce the apostle's thought.
The Greek
term in Rom_1:20 is theiotēs, which again, as a term of quality, is not unfairly
rendered by “Godhead.” What Paul says here is that “the everlasting power and
Godhead” of God “are clearly perceived by means of His works.” By “Godhead” he
clearly means the whole of that by which God is constituted what we mean by
“God.” By coupling the word with “power,” Paul no doubt intimates that his mind
is resting especially upon those qualities which enter most intimately into and
constitute the exaltation of God; but we must beware of limiting the
connotation of the term - all of God's attributes are glorious. The context
shows that the thought of the apostle was moving on much the same lines as in Act_17:29; here, too, the contrast which
determines the emphasis is with “corruptible man,” and along with him, with the
lower creatures in general (Rom_1:23).
How could man think of the Godhead under such similitudes - the Godhead, so clearly
manifested in its glory by its works! The substitution for “Godhead” here of its synonym “Divinity” by the Revised Version
(British and American) is doubtless due in part to a desire to give distinctive
renderings to distinct terms, and in part to a wish to emphasize, more strongly
than “Godhead” in its modern usage emphasizes, the qualitative implication
which is so strong in theiotēš. Perhaps, however, the
substitution is not altogether felicitous. “Divinity,” in its contrast with
“Deity,” may have a certain weakness of connotation clinging to it, which would
unsuit it to represent theiotēs here. It is quite true that the
two terms, “Divinity” and “Deity,” are the representatives in Latin Patristic
writers respectively of the Greek theiotēs and theotēš. Augustine (The City of God,
VII, 1; compare X, 1) tells us that
“Deity” was coined by Christian writers as a more accurate rendering of the
Greek theotēs than the current “Divinity.” But
it does not follow that because “Deity” more accurately renders theotēs, therefore “Divinity” is always
the best rendering of theiotēš. The stress laid by the Greek
Fathers on the employment of theotēs to express the “Deity” of the
Persons of the Trinity was in sequence to attempts which were being made to ascribe
to the Son and the Spirit a reduced “Divinity”; and it was the need the Latin
Fathers felt in the same interests which led them to coin “Deity” as a more
accurate rendering, as they say, of theotēš. Meanwhile theiotēs and “Divinity” had done service
in the two languages, the former as practically, and the latter as absolutely,
the only term in use to express the idea of “Deity.” Theotēs is very rare in classical Greek,
“Deity” non- existent in classical Latin. To represent theiotēs uniformly by “Divinity,” if any
reduced connotation at all clings to “Divinity,” would therefore be to
represent it often very inadequately. And that is the case in the present
passage. What Paul says is clearly made known by God's works, is His
everlasting power and all the other everlasting attributes which form His
Godhead and constitute His glory.
It is theotēs which occurs in Col_2:9. Here Paul declares that “all the
fullness of the Godhead” dwells in Christ “bodily.” The phrase “fullness of the
Godhead” is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception
which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the
conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ “bodily,” that is
after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism.
This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole
plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not “bodily”; in them it is not
manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul
has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fullness of the
Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest
and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. Theiotēs may mean all that theotēs can mean; on monotheistic lips it
does mean just what theotēs means; but theotēs must mean the utmost that either
term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotēs refers to the essence and theiotēs to the attributes; we cannot
separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence is, there the
attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence. And where the
attributes are, there the essence is; it is merely the thing, of the kind of
which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotēs emphasizes that it is the highest
stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotēs might possibly be taken as
referring to Deity at a lower level. It it
not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods many and lords many of
the heathen world, to which “heroes” might aspire, and “demons” attain, all the
plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but that Deity which is
peculiar to the high gods; or, since Paul is writing out of a monotheistic
consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fullness of
supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over
all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is
afforded by our modern English than the term “Godhead,” in which the
qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the
individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what
Paul wishes here to assert - that all that enters into the conception of God,
and makes God what we mean by the term “God,” dwells in Christ, and is
manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.
Godhead
Another Poor Word
Choice in the King James and some others that imitate Kjv
KJV(Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we
ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or
stone, graven by art and man's device.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?language=en&query=Godhead§ion=0&translation=kjv&oq=Godhead&new=1&sr=1
NAS Strong’s Version
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ac+17%3A29§ion=0&it=nas&oq=ac%252017%3A29&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=ac&ng=17&ncc=17
Some People Think That the Godhead is like --Water --Ice and Steam OR like an Egg
shell - membrane, embryo
THE SHELL ---THE WHITE and The
YOKE This
is by art and man's
device.
(CEV) Since we are God's
children, we must not think that he is like an idol made out of gold or silver or stone. He isn't
like anything that humans have thought up and made.
Check
as many Bible as you Desire Open --BestBiblesPlus.htm
http://www.2001translation.com/ACTS.htm
29
‘So, since we are the offspring of God, we shouldn’t think of this Divine
One as being like gold, silver, stone, or like anything else that some
man has artistically sculpted.
(Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
so that they are without excuse:
http://www.2001translation.com/ROMANS.htm
20
For His invisible things, which include His eternal
power and might, are known and can be clearly seen in everything He has made
from the world’s creation onward, and that leaves [them] without any defense
Col 2:9
For in
him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.
http://www.2001translation.com/Colossians.htm
9
For the complete Divine body lives in him,
Act 17:29
(CEV) Since we are God's
children, we must not think that he is like an idol made out of gold or silver
or stone. He isn't like anything that humans have thought up and
made.
(GNB) Since we are God's
children, we should not suppose that his nature
is anything like an image of gold or silver or stone, shaped by human art and
skill.
(GW) So if we are God's
children, we shouldn't think that the divine being is like an image made from gold, silver, or stone, an image that is
the product of human imagination and skill.
(ISV) So if we are God's
children, we shouldn't think that the divine being is like gold, silver, or stone, or is an image carved by human
imagination and skill.
(KJV) Forasmuch then as we are
the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold,
or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
(KJV+) Forasmuch then3767 as we are5225
the offspring1085 of God,2316 we ought3784
not3756 to think3543 that the3588
Godhead2304 is1511 like unto3664
gold,5557 or2228 silver,696
or2228 stone,3037 graven5480
by art5078 and2532 man's444
device.1761
(LITV) Then being offspring of
God, we ought not to suppose that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone,
engraved by art and the imagination of man.
(MKJV) Then being offspring of
God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone,
engraved by art and man's imagination.
(MSG) Well, if we are the
God-created, it doesn't make a lot of sense to think we could hire a sculptor
to chisel a god out of stone for us, does it?
Diaglot
29 Offspring therefore being of the God, not we are bound
to suppose, gold or silver or stone, a sculpture of art and device of man, the Deity to be like
Col 2:9
Compare
(CEV) God lives fully in Christ.
(GNB) For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity,
(GW) All of God lives in
Christ's body,
(ISV) For in him the whole
fullness of God lives in bodily form.
(KJV) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
(KJV+) For3754 in1722
him846 dwelleth2730 all3956
the3588 fullness4138 of the3588
Godhead2320 bodily.4985
(MSG) Everything of God gets
expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a
telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and
the emptiness of the universe without him.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Godhead
In Christianity,
the Godhead is a unit consisting of God
the Father, Jesus
Christ (the
Son), and the Holy Spirit. Though often used interchangeably with the
concept of Trinity,
the terminology of Godhead is broader than the idea of Trinity,
and includes other ideas of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
interrelated. Open Concept.htm
Godhead---No. 1 Improvement in Most all New Bibles---Open-- BadWordsInTheBIBLES.htm
Open
Index http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=JOHN1onePLUS&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=slv1-mdp&dups=1
SimpleBibleTruths.net-The Alternative to
Mysticism WHAT IS Mysticism
open WHATisMysticism.htm Extended articles From AGODagod.htm JOHN1onePLUS.htm TrinitarianBiasTestPLUSmore.htm
AND Life.htm
The Word- Godhead --The Long Article---
For The Short one open BadWordsInTheBIBLES.htm
Also Read
TheEVILSideOFTheTRINITY.>
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Who Do You Imitate? Man
Made Traditions --or Jesus’ Teachings and
His Apostles
Teachings Open 2 Tim 3:17- 3:16
–Rev - 22:16-6-19 click In
Context Imitate This Page
--Is Part 3-1 is Mystery
Verses Plus More 2 is Tradition
Plus Verses. Jn-4-24-PLUS.htm .Jn-4-24-plus.Jn 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Details open each those--must-spirit-(PROSKUNEO worship) --truth."
The KJV Strong's
Version
Ac 17:29 - [In
Context For as much then as we are (5723) the offspring of God, we ought (5719) not to think (5721)
that the Godhead is (5750) like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Enter Godhead into the search engine AT http://www.searchgodsword.org
NASB/W/Strongs – Here’s what you get
Your query
for 'Godhead' in 'The New American Standard Bible' failed to
return any verse results. Please modify your query and try again.
Godhead -A--pro Nicene--Creed- Mental Imaginary-Concept
SBT
Note ---
You get this because the Word Godhead shouldn’t be in any Bible to Explain YHWH— 010.htm
Godhead
means more then One --Yahweh is not a group.
Godhead Is
Intentionally Used By the Trinity/Oneness Movement Theology ---worded as such to promote an
Unbiblical
Word or phase to fit the group of Two or Three in One uncreated beings ---The
Mystery Group--Study AFact.htm & PreExistenceOfChrist.htm.
Divine
Nature-Not Godhead in
NAS-BIBLE and
many other Newly Revised Bibles
open Acts17:29 Divine Nature –not the Word Godhead
"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone,
an image formed by the art and thought of man---See
more examples below
a. of idolatrous
images -Images
Note That Jesus is the image of God –an image
is not the original --STUDY -Images &Oneness.htm
As a human son may closely resemble his father in various ways,
this heavenly Son reflectes his Father’s qualities
and personality. Col 1:15
He is the “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16)
This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Jesus is also
the only one whom God used when He
created all other things. (Colossians 1:16
- Prov8-22.htm ) Then, too, Jesus is called “the Word.” (John 1:14)
This tells us that he spoke for God, no doubt delivering messages and
instructions to the Father’s other sons, both spirit and human.
.Begotten
Has Been Removed From Many Newly Revised
Trinitarian/Oneness Bibles
Compare B2.S Bibles
STUDY--ID of Imaginations
of God’s Head--Images.htm
Compare all good Dictionaries---OPEN BestBibleDictionariesPLUS.htm
And Bible
Translations—in BestBiblesPlus.htm ---And See Who is Doing
it Right !!!!
Divine Nature-Not Godhead NASB Acts17:29
"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man
You can do this with each one of the Bibles in SearchGodsWord.org---
Example (2) Enter Godhead KJV/W/Strongs--And Click on
--Original Greek---and see what you get
Example KJV
http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?l=en&query=Godhead§ion=0&translation=str&sr=1&Enter=Perform+Search
The Dictionary
doesn’t Recognize Godhead as part of |Original Greek]
KJV—Has 3
Verses
Open Ac
17:29 - Ro 1:20 - Col
2:9 –
YOU GET THIS
Changes Form
--
Note --That YHWH (Jehovah
in English) Jehovah can cause 010.htm (accomplish) anything He Wills ---But
It Is Unscriptural
That He Changes Himself (to make Himself) into the Person of Jesus at anytime (
Study AAIsJesusRealToYouPart2.htm & Part 1
in A + SatanAndJesus.htm) that would make Jesus
not a real being of Himself –Jn 5:26.- 010.htm.
Mal 3:16
Then those who feared the (Open) LORD spoke to one another, and the LORD gave attention and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the LORD and who esteem His name.
Mal 3:6
"For I,
the (Open) LORD,--(Jehovah) do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
)l bq(y (8804) eT)w (8804) ytyn$ )l hwhy
yn) yK
. etylk
Who is The ALPHAandTheOMEGA.htm
COMPARE The Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias--- Open Dictionary-Example.htm
SearchGodsWord.org---Dictionary Reads as Follows
(1)-a general name of deities or divinities as used by
the Greeks
SBT
Note --- as used by the Greeks The
Hebrews—Didn’t use the Word---- Godhead --Pagans Had gods with many heads <
YHWH is One
Head –Undivided
(2)--spoken of the only and true God, trinity -----
- of
Christ
- Holy
Spirit
- the
Father
SBT—Noticed The Accuracy of The Words ***Spoken of*** In No 2
The Question
IS *** Spoken of By Who ?***
The
Same People That Speak These Unscriptural Words
Non-Biblical Words and Phrases –To Try to Control People
with Them-- Here are Some
Spoken of BY
Oneness and Tri-Phantom God --So Called Theologians--- God the
Son,-God-Man,-God begat God ,- Jesus is God, The Holy
Spirit is God in the 3rd Person--Jesus eternally existed as
one with the Father, Not make or Created out of any act
of will by the Father, The Son is equal or co-equal to the Father, God came in
the flesh,. God sacrificed himself to himself. God is three in one, God is two
in One. One and One is One --Three in one
is One. One and One and Onne equals One.
None of these Words or Phases exists in God’s Inspired written Vocabulary Open UnbiblicalWordsThatInvalidateGodsWords.htm
AND BestStatementFound.htm
De 33:26
"There is none like the God of Jeshurun,
Who rides the heavens to your help,
And
through the skies in His majesty.
eyqx$ wtw)gbW jrz(b eym$ bekr
(8802) aWrU$y
le)K aye)
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0410&l=en
"There is none like the God of Jeshurun,
Strong’s o410
- god,
god-like one, mighty one
- mighty
men, men of rank, mighty heroes
- angels
- god,
false god, (demons, imaginations)
- God, the one true God, Jehovah
- mighty
things in nature
- strength,
power
II) (a) Hence
the word was appropriated by Jews and retained by Christians to denote
"the one true God." In the Sept. theos translates (with few
exceptions) the Hebrew words Elohim and Jehovah, the former indicating His power
and preeminence, the latter His unoriginated, immutable, eternal and
self-sustained existence. Open http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines?tofrom=G
– Open god
Open the Links Without links to names]
[Without links to names] [With Easton] [With Nave] [With Torrey] [X]
[With Webster dictionary] [With Roget's thesaurus] [With ->German] [With ->German2] [With ->Russian] [With ->French] [With ->Estonian] [X]
Myths-For The Biggest of Them All --Open-- MythsAndMythology.htm
-Sbt Note –The Christian-Trinity God was Invented—and
Approved—But Not Proved in 381 A.D -and
about---292 Years After Jesus’ Death--
Jesus was
Declared BY Man –Not by YHWH to be God.
The word
Godhead is still around today intentionally to promote the Trinity—(OpenTrindirty.htm )
If any modern Bible or Commentator uses the word Godhead he
is most likely
Trinity Bias----Proceed with caution
or find another commentary that doesn’t use that word or explains why he is.OPEN Commentaries.htm
The KJV Bible
is Recognized as being the most inaccurate English Bible Version in
use today—
Introductory remarks: Recognizing the contribution of the
King James Version
Open--http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm
Read the Colwell
Bible Test in-- BestBiblesComingInTheFuture..> and for
interested advanced Students who really care about a list of
verses in most Bibles that have been intentionally rendered in away
to infer the wrong meaning--- you will want to study the following Pages
with a great passion and Compare (all verses listed) with your
Favorite Bible 1Tim316.htm-- BiblePunctuationMarksPLUS.htm
TrinitarianBiasTestPLUSmore.htm --and
Compare what you find with the 1st&ammp;aamp;<
group of Bibles listed in BestBiblesPlus.htm
Repeat-COMPARE The All Good Bible Dictionaries and
Godhead ----- is only another&> way
of saying “God,” a simple meaning
Learn how One
God became 3 –to some---Focus on what Paul was explaining and
How Some
read more in to it—and why most Bibles use
a different WORD
History Lesson
Some Key Points Bolden Underlined .ect We left most for you to
do !!
The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia
ISBE http://studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3857
(Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9),
god´hed: The word “Godhead” is a simple doublet of the less frequently occurring
“Godhood.” Both forms stand side by side in the Ancren Riwle (about 1225 ad),
and both have survived until today, though not in equally common use. They are
representatives of a large class of abstract substantives, formed with the
suffix “-head” or “-hood”, most of which formerly occurred in both forms almost
indifferently, though the majority of them survive only, or very preponderatingly (except in Scottish speech), in the form
-hood. The two suffixes appear in Middle Ennglish as “-hêde” and “-hôd”, and presuppose in the Anglo-Saxon which lies behind them a feminine haéda (which is not actually known) by the side of the masculine hád. The Anglo-Saxon word “was originally a distinct substantive, meaning
'person, personality, sex, condition, quality, rank'” (Bradley, in A New
English Dict. on a Historical Basis, under the
word “-hood”), but its use as a suffix early superseded its separate
employment. At first -hêde appears to have been appropriated to
adjectives, -hôd to substantives; but, this distinction breaking down and the forms coming
into indiscriminate use, -hêde grew obsolete, and remains in common
use only in one or two special forms, such as “Godhead,” “maidenhead” (Bradley,
as cited, under the word “-head”).
The general elimination of the forms
in -head has been followed by a fading consciousness, in the case of the few
surviving instances in this form, of the qualitative sense inherent in the
suffix. The words accordingly show a tendency to become simple denotatives. Thus, “the Godhead” is frequently employed
merely as a somewhat strong synonym of “God” although usually with more or less
emphasis upon that in God which makes Him God. One of its established usages is
to denote the Divine essence as such, in distinction from the three
“hypostases” or “persons” which share its common possession in the doctrine of
the Trinity. This usage is old: Bradley (op. cit.) is able to adduce instances
from the 13th century. In this usage the word has long held the rank of a
technical term, e.g. the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1571,
Art. I: “And in the unity of this Godhead, there be three persons” (compare the
Irish Articles of 1615, and the Westminster Confession, II, 3); Westminster
Shorter Catechism, Q. 6: “There are three persons in the Godhead.” Pursuant to
the fading of the qualitative sense of the word, there has arisen a tendency,
when the qualitative consciousness is vivid, to revive the obsolescent
“Godhood,” to take its place; and this tendency naturally shows itself
especially when the contrast with humanity is expressed. Carlyle, for example (French
Revolution, III, Book vi, chapter iv, section 1),
speaking of the posthumous reaction against Marat,
writes: “Shorter godhood had no divine man”; and Phillips Brooks (Sermons,
XIII, 237) speaks of Christ bridging the gulf “between the Godhood and the
manhood.” “Godhood” seems, indeed, always to have had a tendency to appear in
such contrasts, as if the qualitative consciousness were more active in it than
in “Godhead.” Thus, it seems formerly to have suggested itself almost as
inevitably to designate the Divine nature of Christ, as “Godhead” did to
designate the common Divine essence of the Trinity. Bradley cites instances
from 1563 down.
The fundamental meaning of “Godhead”
is, nevertheless, no less than that of “Godhood,” the state, dignity,
condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that
which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God.
When we ascribe Godhead to a being, therefore, we affirm that all that enters
into the idea of God belongs to Him. “Godhead” is thus the Saxon equivalent of
the Latin “Divinity,” or, as it is now becoming more usual to say, “Deity.”
Like these terms it is rendered concrete by prefixing the article to it. As
“the Divinity,” “the Deity,” so also “the Godhead” is only another way of saying “God,” except that when we say “the Divinity,” “the Deity,” “the
Godhead,” we are saying “God” more abstractly and more qualitatively, that is
with more emphasis, or at least with a more lively consciousness, of the
constitutive qualities which make God the kind of being we call “God.”
The word “Godhead” occurs in the King
James Version only 3 times (Act_17:29; Rom_1:20; Col_2:9), and oddly
enough it translates in these 3 passages, 3 different, though closely related,
Greek words, τὸ θεῖον, tó theíon θειότης, theiótēs, θεότης, theótēš.
To theion means “that which is Divine,”
concretely, or, shortly, “the
Deity.” Among
the Greeks it was in constant use in the sense of “the Divine Being,” and particularly as a general term
to designate the Deity apart from reference to a particular god. It is used by
Paul (Act_17:29) in an address made to a heathen
audience, and is inserted into a context in which it
is flanked by the simple term “God” (ὁ
Θεός, ho theós) on both sides. It is obviously
deliberately chosen in order to throw up into emphasis the qualitative idea of
God; and this emphasis is still further heightened by the direct contrast into
which it is brought with the term “man.” “Being, then, the offspring of God, we
ought not to think that it is to gold or silver or stone graven by art and
device of man that the Godhead is like.” In an effort to
bring out this qualitative emphasis, the Revised Version, margin suggests that
we might substitute for “the Godhead” here the periphrastic rendering, “that
which is Divine.” But this seems both clumsy and ineffective for its purpose.
From the philological standpoint, “the Godhead” is very fair equivalent for to theion, differing as it does from the simple “God” precisely by
its qualitative emphasis. It may be doubted, however, whether in the partial
loss by “Godhead” of its qualitative force in its current usage, one of its
synonyms, “the Divinity” (which is the rendering here of the Rhemish version) or “the Deity,” would not better convey
Paul's emphasis to modern readers.
Neither of these terms, “Divinity,” “Deity,”
occurs anywhere in the King James Version, and “Deity” does not occur in the
Revised Version (British and American) either; but the Revised Version (British
and American) (following the Rhemish version)
substitutes “Dignity” for “Godhead” in Rom_1:20. Of the two,
“Dignity” was originally of the broader connotation; in the days of heathendom
it was applicable to all grades of Divine beings. “Deity” was introduced by the
Christian Fathers for the express purpose of providing a stronger word by means
of which the uniqueness of the Christians' God should be emphasized. Perhaps
“Divinity” retains even in its English usage something of its traditional
weaker connotation, although, of course, in a monotheistic consciousness the
two terms coalesce in meaning. There exists a tendency to insist, therefore, on
the “Deity” of Christ, rather than his mere “Divinity,” in the feeling that
“Divinity” might lend itself to the notion that Christ possessed but a
secondary or reduced grade of Divine quality. In Act_17:29 Paul is not discriminating between grades of Divinity, but is preaching monotheism. In this
context, then, to theion does not lump together “all that is called God or is
worshipped,” and declare that all that is in any sense Divine should be
esteemed beyond the power of material things worthily to represent. Paul has
the idea of God at its height before his mind, and having quickened his
hearers' sense of God's exaltation by his elevated description of Him, he
demands of them whether this Deity can be fitly represented by any art of man
working in dead stuff. He uses the term to theion, rather than ho theos, not merely
in courteous adoption of his hearers' own language, but because of its
qualitative emphasis. On the whole, the best English translation of it would
probably be “the Deity.” “The Godhead” has ceased to be sufficiently
qualitative: “the Godhood” is not sufficiently current: “the Divine” is not
sufficiently personal: “the Divinity” is perhaps not sufficiently strong:
“Deity” without the article loses too much of its personal reference to
compensate for the gain in qualitativeness: “the
Deity” alone seems fairly to reproduce the apostle's thought.
The Greek term in Rom_1:20 is theiotēs, which again, as a
term of quality, is not unfairly rendered by “Godhead.” What Paul says
here is that “the everlasting power and Godhead” of God “are clearly perceived
by means of His works.” By “Godhead” he clearly means the whole of that by
which God is constituted what we mean by “God.” By coupling the word with
“power,” Paul no doubt intimates that his mind is resting especially upon those
qualities which enter most intimately into and constitute the exaltation of
God; but we must beware of limiting the connotation of the term - all of God's
attributes are glorious. The context shows that the thought of the apostle was
moving on much the same lines as in Act_17:29; here, too,
the contrast which determines the emphasis is with “corruptible man,” and along
with him, with the lower creatures in general (Rom_1:23). How could
man think of the Godhead under such similitudes - the
Godhead, so clearly manifested in its glory by its works! The substitution for
“Godhead” here of its synonym “Divinity” by the Revised Version (British and
American) is doubtless due in part to a desire to give distinctive renderings
to distinct terms, and in part to a wish to emphasize, more strongly than
“Godhead” in its modern usage emphasizes, the qualitative implication which is
so strong in theiotēš. Perhaps, however, the substitution
is not altogether felicitous. “Divinity,” in its contrast with “Deity,” may
have a certain weakness of connotation clinging to it, which would unsuit it to represent theiotēs here. It is quite
true that the two terms, “Divinity” and “Deity,” are the representatives in
Latin Patristic writers respectively of the Greek theiotēs and theotēš. Augustine (The City of God,
VII, 1; compare X, 1) tells us that “Deity” was coined by Christian writers as
a more accurate rendering of the Greek theotēs than the
current “Divinity.” But it does not follow that because “Deity” more accurately
renders theotēs, therefore
“Divinity” is always the best rendering of theiotēš. The stress laid by the Greek
Fathers on the employment of theotēs to express
the “Deity” of the Persons of the Trinity was in sequence to attempts which
were being made to ascribe to the Son and the Spirit a reduced “Divinity”; and
it was the need the Latin Fathers felt in the same interests which led them to
coin “Deity” as a more accurate rendering, as they say, of theotēš. Meanwhile theiotēs and
“Divinity” had done service in the two languages, the former as practically,
and the latter as absolutely, the only term in use to express the idea of
“Deity.” Theotēs is very rare
in classical Greek, “Deity” non- existent in classical Latin. To represent theiotēs uniformly by
“Divinity,” if any reduced connotation at all clings to “Divinity,” would
therefore be to represent it often very inadequately. And that is the case in
the present passage. What Paul says is clearly made known by God's works, is
His everlasting power and all the other everlasting attributes which form His
Godhead and constitute His glory.
It is theotēs which occurs
in Col_2:9. Here Paul declares that “all the
fullness of the Godhead” dwells in Christ “bodily.” The phrase “fullness of the
Godhead” is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception
which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the
conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ “bodily,” that is
after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism.
This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole
plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not “bodily”; in them it is not
manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul
has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fullness of the
Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest
and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. Theiotēs may mean all
that theotēs can mean; on
monotheistic lips it does mean just what theotēs means; but theotēs must mean
the utmost that either term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotēs refers to
the essence and theiotēs to the
attributes; we cannot separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence
is, there the attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence.
And where the attributes are, there the essence is; it is merely the thing, of
the kind of which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotēs emphasizes that
it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotēs might
possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level. It it not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods
many and lords many of the heathen world, to which “heroes” might aspire, and
“demons” attain, all the plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but
that Deity which is peculiar to the high gods; or, since Paul is writing out of
a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All
the fullness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the
God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of
this idea is afforded by our modern English than the term “Godhead,” in which
the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the
individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what
Paul wishes here to assert - that all that enters into the conception of God,
and makes God what we mean by the term “God,” dwells in Christ, and is
manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.
Godhead
Another Poor Word Choice in the
King James and some others that imitate Kjv
KJV(Act 17:29)
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the
Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?language=en&query=Godhead§ion=0&translation=kjv&oq=Godhead&new=1&sr=1
NAS Strong’s
Version
http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ac+17%3A29§ion=0&it=nas&oq=ac%252017%3A29&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=ac&ng=17&ncc=17
Some People Think That the Godhead is like --Water --Ice and Steam OR like an Egg
shell - membrane, embryo
THE SHELL
---THE WHITE and The YOKE ; This
is by
art and man's device.
(CEV) Since
we are God's children, we must not think that he is like an idol made out of gold or silver or stone. He
isn't like anything that humans have thought up and made.
Check
as many Bible as you Desire Open --BestBiblesPlus.htm
http://www.2001translation.com/ACTS.htm
29 ‘So, since we are the offspring of
God, we shouldn’t think of this Divine
One as being like gold, silver, stone, or like anything else that some man
has artistically sculpted.
(Rom 1:20) For
the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse:
http://www.2001translation.com/ROMANS.htm
20 For His invisible things, which
include His eternal power and might, are known and can
be clearly seen in everything He has made from the world’s creation onward, and
that leaves [them] without any defense
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
http://www.2001translation.com/Colossians.htm
9 For the complete Divine body lives in him,
Act 17:29
(CEV) Since we are God's children,
we must not think that he is like an idol made out of gold or silver or stone. He isn't like anything that humans have thought
up and made.
(GNB) Since we are God's children,
we should not suppose that his nature is anything like an image of gold or silver or
stone, shaped by human art and skill.
(GW) So if we are God's children,
we shouldn't think that the divine
being is like an image made from gold, silver, or stone, an image that is the
product of human imagination and skill.
(ISV) So if we are God's children,
we shouldn't think that the divine
being is like gold, silver, or stone, or is an image carved by human
imagination and skill.
(KJV) Forasmuch then as we are the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or
silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
(KJV+) Forasmuch then3767 as we are5225 the
offspring1085 of God,2316 we ought3784 not3756 to think3543 that the3588 Godhead2304 is1511 like unto3664 gold,5557 or2228 silver,696 or2228 stone,3037 graven5480 by art5078 and2532 man's444 device.1761
(LITV) Then being offspring of God, we
ought not to suppose that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone, engraved
by art and the imagination of man.
(MKJV) Then being offspring of God,
we ought not to think that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone,
engraved by art and man's imagination.
(MSG) Well, if we are the
God-created, it doesn't make a lot of sense to think we could hire a sculptor
to chisel a god out of stone for us, does it?
Diaglot
29
Offspring therefore being of the
God, not we are bound to suppose, gold or silver or stone, a sculpture of art
and device of man, the
Deity to be like
Col 2:9
Compare
(CEV) God lives fully in Christ.
(GNB) For the full content of divine nature lives in
Christ, in his humanity,
(GW) All of God lives in Christ's
body,
(ISV) For in him the whole fullness
of God lives in bodily form.
(KJV) For in him dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
(KJV+) For3754 in1722 him846 dwelleth2730 all3956 the3588 fullness4138 of the3588 Godhead2320 bodily.4985
(MSG) Everything of God gets
expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a
telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and
the emptiness of the universe without him.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Godhead
In Christianity, the Godhead is a unit
consisting of God the Father, Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit. Though often used
interchangeably with the concept of Trinity, the terminology of Godhead
is broader than the idea of Trinity, and includes other ideas of how the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are interrelated. Open Concept.htm
Godhead---No. 1 Improvement in Most all New Bibles---Open-- BadWordsInTheBIBLES.htm
Open
Index http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=JOHN1onePLUS&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=slv1-mdp&dups=1
SimpleBibleTruths.net-The
Alternative to Mysticism WHAT IS Mysticism open WHATisMysticism.htm Extended
articles From AGODagod.htm JOHN1onePLUS.htm TrinitarianBiasTestPLUSmore.htm AND Life.htm
The Word- Godhead --The Long Article--->
For The Short one open BadWordsInTheBIBLES.htm
Latin Vulgate
17:29
genus ergo cum simus Dei non debemus aestimare auro aut argento aut lapidi
sculpturae artis et cogitationis hominis divinum esse simile
King
James Version http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C017.htm#V29 1O Bibles plus Fur Biblos open http://bible.cc/acts/17-29.htm
17:29 Forasmuch then
as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like
unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
American
Standard Version
17:29 Being then the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or
silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.
Bible
in Basic English
17:29 If then we are
the offspring of God, it is not right for us to have the idea that God is like
gold or silver or stone, formed by the art or design of man.
Darby's
English Translation
17:29 Being therefore the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that which is divine to be like gold or
silver or stone, the graven form of man's art and imagination.
Douay
Rheims
17:29 Being therefore
the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or
silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man.
Noah
Webster Bible
17:29 Being then the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or
silver, or stone graven by art and man's device.
Weymouth
New Testament
17:29 Since then we
are God's offspring, we ought not to imagine that His nature resembles gold or
silver or marble, or anything sculptured by the art and inventive faculty of
man.
World
English Bible
17:29 Being then the offspring
of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver,
or stone, engraved by art and device of man.
Young's
Literal Translation
17:29 'Being,
therefore, offspring of God, we ought not to think the Godhead to be like to
gold, or silver, or stone, graving of art and device of man;
Also Read
TheEVILSideOFTheTRINITY.>