Twelve Arguments Refuting The Deity Of The Holy Spirit by John Biddle

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Twelve Arguments Refuting The Deity Of The Holy Spirit by John Biddle

Download this book here

"This brave and good man has sometimes been called "the father of English Unitarianism." Not that he was the first English Unitarian; but he was the first in England to become conspicuous as a public defender of the worship of the one true God. All the accounts we have of Biddle represent him as a pious man without one stain upon his character; a man with a profound reverence for God and Christ, and zealous to promote the holiness of life. The trials of Biddle, his suffering life and premature death in a dungeon, endear his memory and embalm his name." ~Robert Spears

Biddle published this pamphlet in 1644, after a close study of the Trinity:

1) He that is distinguished from God is not God.
The Holy Spirit is distinguished from God.
Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not God.

2) He that gave the Holy Spirit to the Israelites is Jehova Alone.
Then the Holy Spirit is not Jehova or God.

3) He that speakest not for himself is not God.
The Holy Spirit speaks not for himself.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

4) He that is taught is not God.
He that hears from another what he shall speak is taught.
Christ speaks what he is told (John 8:26).
Therefore Christ is not God.

5) In John 16:14 Jesus says: “God is He that giveth all things to all”.
He that receives from another is not God.

6) He that is sent by another is not God.
The Holy Spirit is sent by God.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

7) He that is not the giver of all things is not God (Acts 17:25).
He that is the gift of God is not the giver of all things.
He that is the gift of God is himself given.
The gift is in the power and at the disposal of the giver.
It is therefore absurd to imagine that God can be in the power or at the disposal of another.

8) He that changes place is not God.
The Holy Spirit changes place.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

9) He that prays to Christ to come to judgement is not God.
The Holy Spirit does so.

Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

10) In Romans 10:14 it reads, “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard. He in whom men have not believed, yet were disciples”.
He who is not believed in is not God.
Men have not believed in the Holy Spirit, yet were disciples.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

11) He that hears from God at the second hand, viz the Christ Jesus, what he shall speak has an understanding distinct from God.
He that heareth from God what he shall speak is taught of God.
The Holy Spirit does so.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

12) He that has a will distinct in number from that of God is not God.
The Holy Spirit has a will distinct in number from God (Romans 8: 26-27).
Therefore the Holy Spirit is not God.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

Frank Ewald on the Trinity

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

From: The Bible – the Most Read Book on Earth by Ewald Frank (book available by clicking here)

In the Bible, we find neither the trinity doctrine of three eternal persons nor the baptism in the Trinitarian formula. There is not a single Scripture in which even one act would have been administered in the formula “in the Name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” – not a single one! Every prayer, in fact, everything took place in the Name of the LORD Jesus Christ, for that was the command given to the true believers in Col 3:17: “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the LORD Jesus …”

The Trinitarian formula is used in all churches for every religious act or ceremony, for the induction into all orders and lodges, even for spiritualistic sessions, and all the more throughout the entire occultism. It is not biblical; therefore, it can only be unbiblical. It is not of divine origin; therefore, it is false inspiration and deception. Everybody should think about it, also the charismatics who use the Name “Jesus Christ” in the prayer for the sick but vehemently reject to be personally baptized in the Name of the LORD Jesus Christ....

The well-known Swiss theologian Hans Küng covered this important subject in his book Das Christentum (The Christendom), which contains more than a thousand pages. On page 126 he asks the question: “Is there any mention of a trinity in the New Testament?” Immediately thereafter he writes: “No trinity doctrine in the New Testament.” He also discusses the “Comma Johanneum”: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Küng explains: “However, historical-critical research has exposed this sentence as a forgery that came into existence in the third or fourth century in North Africa or in Spain. It was of no use to the Roman inquisition authority when it tried to defend this sentence as being authentic even at the beginning of our century. In plain terms, it means nothing other than this: Within Judeo-Christianity, in fact, in the entire New Testament, there is indeed the faith in God, the Father; in Jesus, the Son; and in God’s Holy Spirit, but there is no doctrine of a god in three persons (forms of existence), no doctrine of a triune god or of a trinity.” (pp. 126-127).

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

ANALUSAI and Philippians 1:23

Ralph Wilson: Philippians 1:22 in their translation reads "what I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ," rather than "I desire to depart and be with Christ." Their strange, awkward rendering is intended to support a belief in "soul sleep," since this verse in its true form tells believers that they will be with Christ in heaven the very moment they die.

Reply: I think you are referring to verse 23 and the word ANALUSAI. The Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon has as one of it's renderings into English, "releasing." Liddell Scott, page 112, Section I.2 gives this as a meaning of analusai. [LJS9 I.2 "releasing", Gr., analy'sai; Lat., dissol'vi]

A careful reading of the Nestle Aland Greek text shows an interesting marginal note for Philippians 1:23. There is also a cross-reference from 1Thessalonians 4:17 pointing back to Philippians 1:23. SUNEXOMAI DE EK TWN DUO THN EPIQUMIAN EXWN EIS TO ANALUSAI KAI [1Th 4,17 SUN XRISTW EINAI] POLLW GAR MALLON KREISSON (NA27) 1Th 4,17! EPEITA HMEIS OI ZWNTES OI PERILEIPOMENOI AMA SUN AUTOIS ARPAGHSOMEQA EN NEFELAIS EIS APANTHSIN TOU KURIOU EIS AERA KAI OUTWS PANTOTE [Ph 1,23! SUN KURIW ESOMEQA] (GRK) The context of 1Thessalonians clearly points to the "being with" the Lord Christ Jesus to the future parousia of Christ, at the resurrection.

Greek Professor Gerald Hawthorne has this to say: "Interestingly, Paul now refrains from boldly saying, "I desire to die" (APOQNHSKEIN), preferring rather to use a euphemism (ANALUSAI) for death" (Word Commentary Vol. 43, P. 48). He adds that ANALUSAI can refer to "a ship 'being released from its mooring,' 'weighing anchor' and sailing off." (Ibid.)

Vine's explains ANALUO as "to unloose, undo", and he explains it metaphorically as "...the unyoking of baggage animals".

The Revised New Jerusalem Bible also uses the word "released" here, as does Lyman Booth in his "The Mystery Of Iniquity Explained."

I think the New World Translation Bible has handled this verse quite marvelously, proving itself once more to be a valuable asset to any Bible library.

ALL Bibles Add Words

Ralph Wilson: Another concern is the...New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures...Translated by a committee of five, none of whom were trained in Hebrew and Greek...their translation of Colossians 1:16 reads, "By means of him all [other] things were created...." The word "other" is added so that Jesus would be seen as a created being, and not as the divine, uncreated Creator.

Reply: Does the insertion of the word "other" indicate a lack a training in the original languages?

The Revised Standard Version inserts the word "other" 100 times, the King James Version, 67 times, and the New Revised Standard Version New Testament 31 times. Here are some examples:

Mark 12:43
"this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury." RSV
"this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury." NAB
"I tell you that this poor widow put more in the offering box than all the others." TEV

Luke 21:29
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)

Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

In all these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?

"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".

The book Theology and Bias in Bible Translations by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS."

Even the NIV has been strongly criticized for adding the word "other" at 1 Cor 6:18, as this changes the meaning and adds the translators theology on the matter.

The NIV has been criticized thusly in other Scriptures also:

"It is surprising that translators who profess to have 'a high view of Scripture' should take liberties with the text by omitting words or, more often, by adding words that are not in the manuscripts." Chapter 12, The New International Version, The Bible in Translation by Bruce M. Metzger [Baker Academic, 2001]

Consider Luther's translation of Romans 3:28 where he adds the word "alone" to the word "faith." The NIV Study Bible says here, "When Luther translated this passage, he added the word 'alone,' which, though not in the Greek, accurately reflects the meaning." You cannot condemn one version, and then praise another for doing exactly the same thing. You cannot have it both ways.

All Bibles add words, simply put. Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet there are thousands of them. P. Marion Sims researched all the words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew in the 1611 King James Version and counted 43, but in the 1870 (Cambridge) edition that number had ballooned to 583 words in italics in the same Gospel. (P. Marion Sims, The Bible in America, New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1936, p. 97.)

Let's us not forget the interpolation of the entire spurious clause, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" at 1 John 5 in certain Versions, and yet the Bibles that contain these words are praised as masterpieces.

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here...AND IT IS ONLY 99 CENTS

Visit a local listing for this book here

My Response to Bible.ca's "Arian Biased Translations"

I often see this article at http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-translations.htm complaining about certain "Arian Biased" translations. Arian (not Aryan) comes from Arius, a non-trinitarian in the 4th century Nicean Controversy that has since been condemned as a heretic. It should be noted that this is the same website that claims that since the 1981 NWT has 1666 pages it must be the Mark of the Beast. In other words, we are not dealing with great intellects at this site.

The Bibles this site has singled out for castigation are:

Schonfield's New Testament

Johannes Greber's New Testament

New World Translation

James Moffatt's Bible

The Smight & Goodspeed Bible

Emphatic Diaglott

Kingdom Interlinear

Lamsa's New Testament

Cotton Patch Version

New English Bible

Revised English Bible

New Testament in an Improved Version - Newcome's New Translation

Let me say right off the bat that if you own all 12 of the above Bibles, you will have a better Bible library than if you owned 12 Evangelical Bible versions...even with the Cotton Patch version and Johannes Greber's New Testament included.

The first complaint is against Schonfield, and that he was an unbeliever. The problem that I have with Bible translations is that there are too many Christians are involved in it. This is why you have a host of Trinitarian Biased Bibles (see what I did there?).

Sometimes on wikipedia you will see this caution: "This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view." The reason that is posted is because you can not always trust fan content. Christian Bible translators are "fans" of God, and of course there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but I take their translations with a cautionary view.

 I also like it when non-believers take it upon themselves to translate the Bible, thus giving us a fresh view of how certain passages can and should be translated.

The next complaint is against Johannes Greber and his spiritistic New Testament. I have dealt with this topic at https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-new-world-translation-and-johannes.html. To be fair, no one really uses this New testament anymore.

Then the website moves on to the New World Translation. No surprise there. The claim is made that the NWT is "Nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase and not even a translation!" This is simply a pejorative statement. The NWT Bible is a fantastic translation that is overly criticized by conservative Christian bigots. Elsewhere on this website they trot out Christian scholars that lambast the NWT, often depending on a now debunked rule of Greek grammar. How embarrasing. Alan S. Duthie in his book How to Choose Your Bible Wisely actually recommends the NWT and Kingdom Interlinear as these are "very literal versions" and are suggested "for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages."

Rational Wiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_translation) sums it up nicely for the NWT: "The NWT is widely condemned by mainstream Christian scholars, primarily because it renders many verses in non-standard ways that do not admit traditional interpretations. Non-religious scholars are more approving of it, considering it a fairly good translation. Robert M. Price, for instance, rarely discusses JWs on his voluminous podcast without mentioning that the New World Translation is surprisingly accurate and in many places superior to mainstream translations."

Next, the webpage criticizes James Moffatt and Edgar Goodspeed for being too "liberal." Moffatt and Goodspeed are the greatest Bible translators ever. These men are giants in the field. Christians should thank God for these two men and whatever skepticism they had that led to their respective masterpieces.

After this, the complaint is targeted against J.M. Powis Smith, the translator of the Old Testament portion of the Complete Bible: An American Translation. The site focuses on Isaiah 7:14 where Smith translates the Hebrew word Almah as "young woman" instead of as "virgin." A lot of Bibles translate it this way. Even Catholics, who venerate the Virgin Mary, translate Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman." (See the New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible)

The Emphatic Diaglott next comes under attack because the translator "no credentials in Greek." Yet, the translator (Benjamin Wilson) managed to produce a scholarly work which was praised the clergy in his day. See https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/19th-century-reviews-of-emphatic.html for more.

George M. Lamsa is condemned next. No examples are given from Lamsa's New Testament as to why this is a bad translation. We are simply supposed to reject his New Testament because Lamsa held views that are not 100% in line with those of Bible.ca. If I were to only read books by people that completey agree with my outlook, I would never read anything at all.

Next up is the Kingdom Interlinear, which was according to them was "Produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses." Isn't the New International Version "produced by Evangelicals for Evangelicals." Do you really think Jews or Catholics are reading the NIV Bible? As James Barr wrote in the Quarterly  Review/Fall 1994: "The reason for the existence of the NIV is not, and never was, that it was in any way better, or had better principles of translation, or better scholarship behind it, or that it had solved the problem of style as between archaic 'biblical' style and conversational 'modern' style. Its reason for existence was purely and simply that it was produced by and for evangelicals and for them only."

After this they move on to the Cotton Patch version. No one really takes this Bible seriously. It is gimmicky and silly little rewording of the Bible.

The New English Bible & Revised English Bible is next in line for rebuke as "it is unreliable as a literal translation." The NEB and its successor the REB were never meant to "literal." These are "free" translations. They are not "word for word" translations but instead "meaning for meaning" translations. Interestingly, the site states that the NEB "does get some stuff right on" and they point to the NEB translation of John 1:1c, "What God was the Word was." You know who else likes that translation of John 1:1? Unitarians (See One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith by John W. Schoenheit, Mark H. Graeser & John A. Lynn)

Last, but not least is Newcome's Corrected New Testament in an Improved Version of 211 years ago. The claim was that this Bible "altered Newcome's text." Of course they did. This is what "corrected" Bibles do. It was common back then to alter or amend existing Bibles, and you cannot do that without "altering" the text of the original. Noah Webster's Bible was one such Bible, as was John Wesley's. This site let's us know that this altered Bible was made by Unitarians, and Unitarians are a "cult." CULT is code for "anyone who disagrees with me." The word also is used to insinuate that the accused is intellectually deficient. Let it be known that some of the smartest people in history were Unitarians. Isaac Newton, Michael Servetus and Thomas Jefferson were Unitarians, to name a few. Tim Berners Lee, the man who gave us the World Wide Web is a Unitarian as well.

It should be noted that the alterations made to Archbishop Newcome's New Testament were indeed improvements, especially when it comes to John 1:1, and this altered text does not provide, according to this site, "a basis for the New World Translation's '...and the Word was a god,'"...common sense and good grammar does. This translation of John 1:1c had been translated and discussed long before Newcome's 1808 correction.

And, as Winthrop Bailey remarked a long time ago: "If it be said, that these are the translations of known Unitarians; I reply: our common translation is the work of known Trinitarians. If prejudice render the former suspicious; it renders the latter not less so."

metatron3@gmail.com

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here...AND IT IS ONLY 99 CENTS

Visit a local listing for this book here

A Look at the New European Version Bible

http://www.n-e-v.info/

The New European Version states that it is a "remediation" of the King James and Revised Version. The past has given us many corrected versions of the Authorized Version.* It is, since based on the RV and KJV a formal equivalent Bible. Unlike the RV and KJV, it uses modern English.

This Bible seems to be associated with the Christadelphians, a Biblical Unitarian Christian group started by John Thomas in the 19th century. This would make the NEV the second Bible associated with the Christadelphians, the first being the Emphatic Diaglott, first published in 1864.

The Old Testament uses "Yahweh" consistently, which already makes it superior to most Bibles in use today. Here are some examples/samples from this Bible:

I AM is used at Exodus 3:14, which John 8:58 has "I am of higher status" which to me is an interpretive gloss instead of a remediation.

Proverbs 8:22 still uses "possessed."

Isaiah 9:6 has, "Divine Warrior, Father of the Eternal Age."

Micah 5:2 still has "from everlasting."

Matthew 16:18 uses "grave" instead of "hell" or "hades." Gehenna is used at Matthew 5:22.

"Eternal punishment" is used at Matthew 25:46

This Bible retains the longer ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae (Jesus and the woman taken in adultery at John 7:53–8:11.)

The comma is placed after "today" at Luke 23:43.

John 1:1 has "the Word was Divine" which is superior to the standard translation of this text, and a nod to the two greatest Bible translators, Moffatt and Goodspeed.

John 1:18 has "only begotten Son."

Acts 20:28 has "church of the Lord"

Php 2:6 has "though being in the mental image of God, did not consider grasping at being equal with God."

Titus 2:13 has "the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Hebrews 1:8 has "Your throne, O Mighty One" (Ps 45:6 has "Your throne, God.")

2 Peter 1:1 has "our God, and the Saviour Jesus Christ."

There are times when I wanted this Bible to go further, but it was conservative in certain verses that may have dealt with Christ's pre-existence. But even with that, the NEV Bible is much better than your average Evangelical Bible and it is recommendable.



*Other Amended/Corrected editions of the KJV are: The Commonly Received Version of the New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with several hundred emendations by Spencer Houghton Cone and William H. Wyckoff

The Corrected English New Testament: A Revision of the "Authorised" Version using Nestle's Resultant Greek Text by Samuel Lloyd 1905

The Authorized Version with 20,000 Emendations by John Conquest 1841

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version with the Text Revised, The Marginal References Remodelled and a Critical Introduction Prefixed 1873 by F.H. Scrivener

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: the Common English version corrected by the final committee (1865) American Bible Union Version by American Baptist Publication Society

Noah Webster's Bible

The Primitive New Testament 1745 by William Whiston
Whiston is best known for his translation of Josephus. He follows the KJV except where it departs from the "primitive" text.

Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament by John Wesley 1754
This translation is based on the KJV and revised and altered where Wesley thought it needed it.

A New Translation by Gilbert Wakefield (Unitarian) 1820
Follows the KJV but altered where required.

Scriptures Hebrew and Christian Volume 1 (first 543 pages) by Edward Bartlett and John Peters 1888
Follows the KJV but has made changes in idiom, and uses the divine name Jehovah throughout.

Scriptures Hebrew and Christian Volume 2 by Edward Bartlett and John Peters 1888

The Runner's Bible, Compiled and Annotated for the Reading of Him who Runs 1915
Both the KJV and the English Revised Version are used in this compilation

A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English, according to the Authorized Version, Corrected by the Best Critical editions of the original (1871) by Frederick Gardiner

Thi Nu Testament ov owr Lord and Savyur Jizus Crist Acording to thi Othurizd Vurshun 1846 (Phonetic Bible - Phonotypic)

The Holy Bible in Pitman's Shorthand (Phonography) according to the Authorised version (1890)

Isaiah of Jerusalem in the authorized English version with Corrections and Notes, by Matthew Arnold 1883

An Attempt Towards an Improved Translation of the Proverbs by George Holden 1818

The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Revised from the Authorized Version with the aid of other Translations and made conformable to the Greek text of J.J. Griesbach by Edgar Taylor 1840

In the NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Dr. Ralph Wilson: While the Bible does not use the term "Trinity," the idea is clearly there. For example, Jesus directed that people be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Reply: Mt 28:19, 20 does mention all three together, but why is being baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," supposed to be the same as saying that they are of the same substance and essence?

McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

Why? Let us look at one reason.

Using a singular form of NAME does not necessarily denote singularity.

Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them: and blessed them, and called their NAME Adam, in the day when they were created."
Here two distinct and separate individuals are called by one NAME.

Genesis 48:6 "And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance." All the brothers had
different names although the text represents that by the singular, "name".

It is interesting that the NIV and NEB distributes the term by translating it "names".

Genesis 48:16: "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a mulititude in the midst of the earth." Did Abraham and Isaac have the same name? Clearly, the singular term here "name" is used in a distributive sense.

Mark 5:9: "Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘My name is Legion,’ he replied, ‘For we are many.’" In this case one name was given to a plural number of distinct demons.

The Bible clearly distinguishes between the name of the Father and the name of the Son.
Proverbs 30:4 (NIV):" Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is HIS NAME, AND THE NAME OF HIS SON? Tell me if you know!"

Revelation 14:1 (NIV): "Then I looked, and theme before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had HIS NAME AND HIS FATHER’S NAME written on their foreheads." It is quite obvious that the Father has one name and that the Son has another.

To look for anything else in Matt 28:19 also ignores the "authority" that is placed within the lexical range of ONOMA itself.

If simply mentioning the 3 together ensures triunity, then God, and the Son and the angels must be some mysterious triad, as they are mentioned together more often, (Matt 18:10,11; Matt 16:27; Matt 24:36; Mk 8:38; Mk 13:32; Luk 9:26; 12:8; Jn1:51; 1Cor 4:9, 10; 1Tim:21; Heb 1:6; Heb 2:9; 1Pet 3:22; Rev 14: 21,22)
..or even Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen 50:24; Ex 2:24; 3:6, 15,16; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:13; 2Kings 13:23; Jer 33:26; etc).

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here