Cable television provider for Anchorage, Eagle River, Bethel, Cordova, Fairbanks, Homer, Juneau, Kenai, Soldotna, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Kotzebue, Nome, Petersburg, Seward, Sitka, Valdez and Wrangell. Digital Cable TV is offered in Anchorage.

Cable television provider for Anchorage, Eagle River, Bethel, Cordova, Fairbanks, Homer, Juneau, Kenai, Soldotna, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Kotzebue, Nome, Petersburg, Seward, Sitka, Valdez and Wrangell. Digital Cable TV is offered in Anchorage.

Anchorage weekly television show hosted by Jeanie Greene features native artwork, videos, articles, message forum, and chatrooms.

Half-hour program with news, home videos of village events and life, features, music and interviews. Available in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Sitka, Alaska Rural Television, and various Canadian stations.

Anchorage weekly television show hosted by Jeanie Greene features native artwork, videos, articles, message forum, and chatrooms.

Half-hour program with news, home videos of village events and life, features, music and interviews. Available in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Sitka, Alaska Rural Television, and various Canadian stations.

In article <104.25.11.05.359064000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
> >Not an an ambassador, not an angel, BUT THE LORD HIMSELF SAVED >THEM
> > because He loved them and had mercy on them. (Isa 63:9LXX)
>
>quoting the LXX to prove a doctrine is inconclusive.
>
>"IN all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of his
>presence saved them. In His love and mercy he received them..." (Isaiah
>63:9 NAS)
>
>Isa 63:9In all their affliction He was afflicted , And the angel of His
>presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And
>He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.
>
>~'[yivw{h wy'n'P .$;a.l;m.W r'c a{l ~'t'r'c-l'k.B
>~el.J;n.y;w ~'l'a.g a.Wh w{t'l.m,x.b.W w{t'b]h;a.B
>~'lw{[ yem.y-l'K ~ea.F;n.y;
>
>and nearly every other Bible correctly translates this verse similar.

But why are you so sure they are correct on Isa 63:9, yet wrong on John 1:1?
Don't you see your own glaring inconsistency here? Better yet, don't you know
how obvious this inconsistnecy is to the rest of us?

>leave it to a trinitarian to rely on tendentious and obscure LXX
>argument.

Leave it to a JW to rely on tendentious and obscure translations of John 1:1,
while falsely accusing others of doing the same on Isa 63:9.

>
>he WAS an angel or messenger so your scripture reference proved my
>point. Thanks.

Thanks for the thansk, but tehy were premature. No, it does NOT prove your
point. For the "angel of His presence" has always been a somewhat mysterious
figure. So referring to this angel can _prove_ nothing.

But it should not surprise you that the Orthodox have always believed that this
angel is really the pre-incarnate Christ, i.e., the Word. NOT Michael! There is
NO good reason to suppose that this "angel of His presence" is Michael!


>
>((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

gpatton@bayou.com wrote:
> I understand that there is much in scripture about bribes. I also
> understand that scripture makes it clear that it is wrong to take or
> demand a bribe.

Cite?

> However, I do not find that scripture says nor suggest that it is wrong
> to give a bribe. I suppose that if an evil judge insisted upon
> receiving a bribe before he would rule justly,then he were bribe