the Dogma 3 | pastor-web

The Trinity, The Dogma, The Contradictions # 3

In our third lesson of “The Trinity, The Dogma, The Contradictions”

(a) TESTIMONY OF THE PSALMS

Psalm 2:7. "The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." Here Jahweh, i.e., God of Israel, speaks to the promised Messias. So St. Paul interprets the text (Hebrews 1:5) while proving the Divinity of Jesus from the Psalms. The objection is raised that St. Paul is here not interpreting but only accommodating Scripture. He applies the very same words of Psalm 2:7 to the priesthood (Hebrews 5:5) and to the resurrection (Acts 13:33) of Jesus; but only in a figurative sense did the Father beget the Messias in the priesthood and resurrection of Jesus; hence only in a figurative sense did He beget Jesus as His Son. We answer that St. Paul speaks figuratively and accommodates Scripture in the matter of the priesthood and resurrection but not in the matter of the eternal generation of Jesus.
[Commentary: It is important here to address a couple of things. First off Psalms 2:7 is not a conversation between two divine persons in the Godhead. This is a prophetic scripture recorded in the Psalms speaking of the time of the prophesied Messiah. This came to pass when God manifested himself in flesh as Jesus Christ. Much in the same way as the prophetic passages of Cyrus was written and fulfilled in Isaiah 44:28 - 45:1, “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;”
Also the Apostle Paul or whomever the writer of Hebrews is, is not just accommodating scriptures here, nor is he speaking figuratively. However, concerning the priesthood in Hebrews 5:5 “So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.” This scripture did not claim to apply the prophecy of Psalms 2:7 to the priesthood, but only said, “Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him” meaning the one who said unto him this prophetic statement, “Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee” also made him a high priest.
Concerning the words of the prophecy from Psalm 2:7 as a fulfilment of Acts 13:33-34 “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning
that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.” This is speaking of Christ being risen from the dead and becoming the first begotten of the dead. 1 Corinthians 15:23 “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.” Revelation 1:5 “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood”.]
The entire context of this chapter shows there is a question of real sonship and real Divinity of Jesus. In the same verse, St. Paul applies to Christ the words of Jahweh to David, the type of Christ: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son". (2 Samuel 7:14) In the following verse, Christ is spoken of as the first-born of the Father, and as the object of the adoration of the angels; but only God is adored: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . Thy God, O God, hath anointed thee" (Psalm 44:7-8). St. Paul refers these words to Christ as to the Son of God (Hebrews 1:9).
[Commentary: Take notice again of what the writer of Hebrews states concerning Christ in Hebrews 1:5 “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” Very clearly did it say concerning Christ “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”. This is in clear contradiction to the teaching of the Trinity which claims the Son was begotten by an eternal generation. This emphatically declares that I ‘will be’ to him a Father and he ‘shall be’ to me a Son in the very same verse of scripture that emphatically declares, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” This verse of scripture, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son” was a futuristic statement applied to the Christ by the writer of Hebrews of which they acknowledge by saying, “So St. Paul interprets the text (Hebrews 1:5) while proving the Divinity of Jesus from the Psalms.... In the same verse, St. Paul applies to Christ the words of Jahweh to David, the type of Christ”. This is because the Son of God was begotten at the time of conception when the Holy Ghost overshadowed the virgin Mary and she conceived child of the Holy Ghost and the prophetic prophecy of Psalms 2:7 was fulfilled in the Christ. “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Again, this scripture is completely contrary to the teaching of the Trinitarian doctrine which claims the Son was begotten by an eternal generation.
Luke 1:31, 35 “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”]
We follow the Massoretic reading, "Thy God, O God". The Septuagint and New Testament reading, ho theos, ho theos sou, "O God, Thy God", is capable of the same interpretation. Hence, the Christ is here called God twice; and his throne, or reign, is said to have been from eternity.
[Commentary: Why are they now referring to the Massoretic rendering of the scriptures should be the question that comes to ones mind? The KJV of Hebrews 1:8-9 reads, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” This is the prophecy concerning Christ being anointed by God the Father which is found in Psalms 45:6-7 and being fulfilled when God manifested Himself in flesh as Jesus Christ. Genesis 49:10 “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Jesus Christ of the line of Juda was Shiloh that was to come.
Remember, Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man at the same time. So what you see is Hebrews 1:8 fulfilling the prophecy found in Psalms 45:6 speaking of Christ’s divinity saying “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” and Hebrews 1:9 fulfilling the prophecy found in Psalms 45:7 speaking of Christ’s humanity saying, “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”]
Psalm 99:1: "The Lord said to my Lord (Heb., Jahweh said to my Adonai): Sit thou at my right hand". Christ cites this text to prove that He is Adonai (a Hebrew term used only for Deity), seated at the right hand of Jahweh, who is invariably the great God of Israel (Matthew 22:44).
[Commentary: The Psalm in reference is actually Psalm 110 and they have mistakenly placed 99 here. But Jesus did not use this text to prove that He was the Christ. Jesus said, as is recorded in Matthew 22:41-46 “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”]
In the same psalm, Jahweh says to Christ: "Before the day-star, I begat thee". Hence Christ is the begotten of God; was begotten before the world was, and sits at the right hand of the heavenly Father. Other Messianic psalms might be cited to show the clear testimony of these inspired poems to the Divinity of the promised Messias.
[Commentary: This is in direct opposition to the Word of God. Hebrews 1:5 said concerning Christ, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”. Psalms 110:3 “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.”
After viewing 29 versions of the Bible including the most commonly used versions of the Bible I found only one version of the Bible named Wycliffe that translated Psalms 110:3 to the viewpoint that the Catholic Church has stated here.
As concerning the Wycliffe Bible there have been recent reports that they are producing Bibles that remove “Father,” and “Son” in some Bible translations and this has caused a public outcry.
The main issues of the petition are Arabic and Turkish Bible translations. In the Arabic translation, "Allah" is substituted for "Father" and "Messiah" for "Son." The Turkish translation
substitutes "protector" or "guardian" for "Father" and "proxy" or "representative" for "Son."
One example of this change in the text is in Matthew 28:19, where instead of "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Wycliffe has "Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit."
Wycliffe responds: http://www.wycliffe.org/SonofGod.aspx
Response: 2/7/2012 Wycliffe USA is grateful to all those who have expressed their questions and concerns regarding reports that we have been removing "Father" and "Son" from certain Bible translations, particularly in Muslim cultures. Wycliffe USA is absolutely committed to translating the divine familial terms (Father, Son, and Son of God) clearly and accurately. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus' relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation.
While we have never intentionally sponsored a translation that neglects to properly communicate the divine familial terms, some observers have raised concerns about whether our methodology has consistently met our goal. We are listening to those concerns and are seeking God's guidance as we re-evaluate our methodology and investigate to ensure that our commitment to accurate and clear translation is being reflected in every project. We are engaged in meaningful conversations with partner organizations, constituents, and church leaders to evaluate our standards, and expect to be prepared to issue a more complete statement soon. Thank you for your patience and prayer as we seek to fulfill our mission to make God's Word accessible to all people.]
Heading: The fact of the incarnation Old Testament Proofs
(c) TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETIC BOOKS
The prophets clearly state that the Messias is God. Isaias says: "God Himself will come and will save you" (35:4); "Make ready the way of Jahweh" (40:3); "Lo Adonai Jahweh will come with strength" (40:10). That Jahweh here is Jesus Christ is clear from the use of the passage by St. Mark (1:3). The great prophet of Israel gives the Christ a special and a new Divine name "His name will be called Emmanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). This new Divine name St. Matthew refers to as fulfilled in Jesus, and interprets to mean the Divinity of Jesus. "They shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us." (Matthew 1:23) Also in 9:6, Isaias calls the Messias God: "A child is born to us . . . his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Strong One, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." Catholics explain that the very same child is called God the Strong One (9:6) and Emmanuel (7:14); the conception of the child is prophesied in the latter verse, the birth of the very same child is prophesied in the former verse. The name Emmanuel (God with us) explains the name that we translate "God the Strong One."
[Commentary: Here again we see the altering of scripture in Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” We find the reason why as they state, “The name Emmanuel (God with us) explains the name that we translate "God the Strong One."” So as you can see it is a rendering of their own.
The Trinitarian teaches that the second individual in the Godhead of whom they term God the Son came in the flesh, but this scripture teaches us that God the Father came in the flesh as the Son of God. This scripture said “unto us a child is born.... his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Notice his name shall be called ‘The mighty God’ and also ‘The everlasting Father’. The Trinitarian believer must change the meaning of this verse so that it doesn’t conflict with their teaching of three persons of one God. This also raises the question for the Trinitarian believer as to why there would be a God the Father who has a Son that will be called “the Father of the world to come”?]
Isaias also calls the Messias the "sprout of Jahweh" (4:2), i.e. that which has sprung from Jahweh as the same in nature with Him. The Messias is "God our King" (Isaiah 52:7), "the Saviour sent by our God" (Isaiah 52:10, where the word for Saviour is the abstract form of the word for Jesus); "Jahweh the God of Israel" (Isaiah 52:12): "He that hath made thee, Jahweh of the hosts His name" (Isaiah 54:5)".
The other prophets are as clear as Isaias, though not so detailed, in their foretelling of the Godship of the Messias. To Jeremias, He is "Jahweh our Just One" (23:6 and 33:16). Micheas speaks of the twofold coming of the Child, His birth in time at Bethlehem and His procession in eternity from the Father (5:2). The Messianic value of this text is proved by its interpretation in Matthew (2:6). Zacharias makes Jahweh to speak of the Messias as "my Companion"; but a companion is on an equal footing with Jahweh (13:7). Malachias says: "Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face, and presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple" (3:1). The messenger spoken of here is certainly St. John the Baptist. The words of Malachias are interpreted of the Precursor by Our Lord Himself (Matthew 11:10). But the Baptist prepared the way before the face of Jesus Christ. Hence the Christ was the spokesman of the words of Malachias. But the words of Malachias are uttered by Jahweh the great God of Israel. Hence the Christ or Messias and Jahweh are one and the same Divine Person. The argument is rendered even more forcible by the fact that not only is the speaker, Jahweh the God of hosts, here one and the same with the Messias before Whose face the Baptist went: but the prophecy of the Lord's coming to the Temple applies to the Messias a name that is ever reserved for Jahweh alone. That name occurs seven times (Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Isaiah 1:24; 3:1; 10:16 and 33; 19:4) outside of Malachias, and is clear in its reference to the God of Israel. The last of the prophets of Israel gives clear testimony that the Messias is the very God of Israel Himself.
[Commentary: All of this scriptural evidence should show to us that our One God loved his creation so much that after their fall in the Garden of Eden he prepared for himself a body so that he could come and taste death for us all as the Son of man to redeem mankind back unto himself from their fallen state.
1 John 3:8 “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”
Ephesians 3:11 “According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:”
This was the eternal purpose which God purposed in Christ. The eternal plan of God whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting as the Word of God which became flesh when the fulness of the time was come.
Let us take a closer look at the subject of the Word was with God.
John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
How was this Word with God? What is this Word that was with God and was God?
Article: The Logos Heading: The logos in the New Testament
What is the precise value of this concept in the writings of St. John? The Logos has not for him the Stoic meaning that it so often had for Philo: it is not the impersonal power that sustains the world, nor the law that regulates it; neither do we find in St. John the Platonistic concept of the Logos as the ideal model of the world; the Word is for him the Word of God, and thereby he holds with Jewish tradition, the theology of the Book of Wisdom, of the Psalms, of the Prophetical Books, and of Genesis; he perfects the idea and transforms it by showing that this creative Word which from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men.
[Commentary: Here the Catholic encyclopedia states that for the Apostle John, "the Word is for him the Word of God, and thereby he holds with Jewish tradition.... He perfects the idea and transforms it by showing that this creative Word which was from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men." Take special notice that the early Catholic church recognized, "that this creative Word which was from all eternity was in God" So then, how was this Word with God? What is the definition of this Word?
3056. logos, log'-os; from G3004; something said (including the thought); by impl. a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extens. a computation; spec. (with the art. in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ)
The logos is something said (including the thought) and also the reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive of what was said. Thus the Word that was with God and was God is (the thought, plan, and mind of God.) This is how the Word was with God as the Apostle John told us. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
However, the early Catholic church then drew the conclusion that this Word was the eternally begotten Son of God or what they have termed God the Son. Is this what the Apostle John was trying to relay to us? That our one God was three distinct divine persons of one substance? That somehow God the Son is eternally being begotten? Which is a contradiction of terms. Are the terms ‘Word’ and ‘Son’ interchangeable terms? The answer to these questions is no. This is not what the Apostle John was trying to relay to us.
So what was the Apostle John trying to relay to us? The nutshell answer is exactly what the Apostle John told us. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
We must remember that God is a Spirit. (Jn 4:24) The eternal Spirit of God is the Word that was with God and was God; as the thought, plan, and mind of God. Not as two divine persons of which the three persons exist as the one substance of our God. The Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost) is this eternal Spirit of God. This Word that was with God and was God is the thought, plan, and mind of God that was with God.
The eternal Spirit of God, or the Father, beget His only son when the fulness of the time was come to redeem mankind from their fallen state of sin. This action of conception took place through the Word, (the thought, plan, and mind of God) by His eternal Spirit which is the Holy Ghost when the Holy Ghost came upon the virgin Mary, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her of which holy thing that was to be born of her would be called the Son of God. (Lk 1:30-35)
So the ‘Word’ and the ‘Son’ are not interchangeable terms. The Word is eternal as the thought, plan, and mind of God. The eternal Spirit of God has an eternal purpose in Christ. (Eph 3:11)
This plan of God was set forth as creation by the eternal spirit of God, which is the Word of God, when God spoke the world into existence. This same Word, which is the thought, plan, and mind of God, was made flesh some 4,000 years later when the eternal Spirit of God overshadowed the virgin Mary and she conceived child of the Holy Ghost.
This conception was when the son of God was begotten as the scripture says, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psa 2:7b) Thus the Word is eternal, but the son of God was begotten upon the conception of the virgin Mary by the eternal Spirit of God through the Word of God. The thought, plan, and mind of God in action.]
Article: The Incarnation Heading: The fact of the incarnation Heading: New Testament Proofs Jesus is the Son of God
Fifthly, we may only give a summary of the other uses of thee title Son of God in regard to Jesus. The angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary that her son will "be called the Son of the most High" (Luke 1:32); "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35); St. John speaks of Him as "the only begotten of the
Father" (John 1:14); at the Baptism of Jesus and at His Transfiguration, a voice from heaven cries: "This is my beloved son" (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; Matthew 17:3); St. John gives it as his very set purpose, in his Gospel, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31).
Sixthly, in the testimony of John, Jesus identifies Himself absolutely with the Divine Father. According to John, Jesus says: "he that seeth me seeth the Father" (ibid., xiv, 9). St. Athanasius links this clear testimony to the other witness of John "I and the Father are one" (ibid., x, 30); and thereby establishes the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.
[Commentary: Herein lies another problem in the teaching of the Trinitarian Doctrine. The misunderstanding of the Dual nature of Christ. We will discuss this in more detail in part 4 of “The Trinity, The Dogma, The Contradictions”.]
St. John Chrysostom interprets the text in the same sense. A last proof from John is in the words that bring his first Epistle to a close: "We know that the Son of God is come: and He hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal" (1 John 5:20). No one denies that "the Son of God" who is come is Jesus Christ. This Son of God is the "true Son" of "the true God"; in fact, this true son of the True God, i.e. Jesus, is the true God and is life eternal. Such is the exegesis of this text given by all the Fathers that have interpreted it (see Corluy, "Spicilegium Dogmatico-Biblicum", ed. Gandavi, 1884, II, 48). All the Fathers that have either interpreted or cited this text, refer outos to Jesus, and interpret "Jesus is the true God and life eternal."
[Commentary: What we see here once again is a clear scripture that tells us that Jesus is the true God, and eternal life. We are also told here that “All the Fathers that have either interpreted or cited this text, refer outos to Jesus, and interpret "Jesus is the true God and life eternal." But let us look at the KJV rendering of this verse at hand.
1 John 5:20 “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” Notice these two renderings have completely different meanings. Be ware of what version of the Bible you choose to use.]
Heading: The fact of the incarnation New Testament Proofs (b) WITNESS OF ST. PAUL
Therefore, in St. Paul's theology, the Father's Own Son, Whom the angels adore, Who was begotten in the today of eternity, Who was sent by the Father, clearly existed before His appearance in the Flesh, and is, in point of fact, the great "I am who am",--the Jahweh Who spoke to Moses on Horeb. This identification of the Christ with Jahweh would seem to be indicated, when St. Paul speaks of Christ as ho on epi panton theos, "who is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5). This interpretation and punctuation are sanctioned by all the Fathers that have used the text; all refer to Christ the words "He who is God over all". Petavius
(De Trin., 11, 9, n. 2) cites fifteen, among whom are Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, and Hilary. The Peshitta has the same translation as we have given. Alford, Trench, Westcott and Hort, and most Protestants are at one with us in this interpretation.
[Commentary: Here we see the statement “Who was begotten in the today of eternity”. What do they mean by this? They are speaking of Psalms 2:7 “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” And trying to show that the Son of God was eternally being begotten in the today of eternity. This teaching goes completely against this scripture. And since this scripture specified a point in time that being ‘this day’, and they teach that the Son of God is eternally being begotten, then they of necessity have changed the meaning of this scripture to “Who was begotten in the today of eternity”.
To try to support what they have done here with this scripture they look to Psalms 110:3 “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth” and change the meaning of this verse also to say "Before the day-star, I begat thee". This is in direct opposition to the Word of God. Hebrews 1:5 said concerning Christ, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”. Again, only 1 of 29 versions of the Bible rendered a translation that was supportive of this claim of "Before the day-star, I begat thee" and it was a Bible version named Wycliffe of which is now under scrutiny for “removing "Father" and "Son" from certain Bible translations, particularly in Muslim cultures”.]
This identification of the Christ with Jahweh is clearer in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Christ is said to have been Jahweh of the Exodus. "And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ)" (x, 4). It was Christ Whom some of the Israelites "tempted, and (they) perished by the serpents" (x, 10); it was Christ against Whom "some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer" (x, 11). St. Paul takes over the Septuagint translation of Jahweh ho kyrios, and makes this title distinctive of Jesus. The Colossians are threatened with the deception of philosophy (ii, 8). St. Paul reminds them that they should think according to Christ; "for in him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead (pleroma tes theotetos) corporeally" (ii, 9); nor should they go so low as give to angels, that they see not, the adoration that is due only to Christ (ii, 18, 19). "For in Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him" (eis auton). He is the cause and the end of all things, even of the angels whom the Colossians are so misguided as to prefer to Him (i, 16). The cultured Macedonians of Philippi are taught that in "the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father" (ii, 10, 11). This is the very same genuflexion and confession that the Romans are bidden to make to the Lord and the Jews to Jahweh (see Romans 14:6; Isaiah 14:24). The testimony of St. Paul could be given at much greater length. These texts are only the chief among many others that bear Paul's witness to the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
[Commentary: As we bring this lesson to a close I want to focus on one more scripture, that
being Philippians 2:10-11 which reads “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” However we see it stated here as "the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father" Notice the difference again. “that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” versus “that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father”.
In this case only 2 versions of 29 versions of the Bible rendered a translation that they have used here. This including the most common translations of the Bible. The 2 versions that agreed with this rendering of Philippians 2:11 was the Wycliffe Bible and the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Bible. Again, Be ware of what version of the Bible you choose to use.