(1) Study the history of the word 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
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
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.
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
"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
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
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 -----
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
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
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&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 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,
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,
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(