I don't think that was the issue. I was asked about my ability to understand the ancient languages and I offered a partial list of reference I use.
Howver, I believe there is a section in the back of each that compares translations and versions. In these sections it highlights some areas where the KJV has text that is totally unsupported by the Greek texts, words simply added by the KJV authors.
Moreover, you have been resolute in your refusal to say where you learned these beliefs
Where do I get my beliefs? I can read the Bible! Obviously you and your collegues have not done so with enough thoroughness for this conversations since I have corrected some obvious error. Even as a child I thought the trinity was hooey. There are too many obivous contradictions and suspensions of logic in that theory to be plausible and frankly I'm astonished that it fools as many people as it does.
Funny thing is that you cannot defend your theory and you fail to debunk the clear scriptures and scriptural concepts that I have listed for you.
You demand that I answer your questions about this verse or that verse yet you do answer my questions at all.
If you cannot explain how Jesus can be God when he clearly states that his followers will do greater works than he (Jesus) did, or how Jesus can be God if God is not a man and is invisible, or how Jesus can be God if God raised Jesus from the dead, or how Jesus can be God if Jesus sits at the right hand of God, then your whole theory goes up in smoke.
As I said, when you find a translation where NAME is pluralized in Matthew 28:19, let me know. If you do, it will be a mistranslation because ALL of the known Greek manuscripts use the word onoma and it is singular.
Where do I get my beliefs? I can read the Bible! Obviously you and your collegues have not done so with enough thoroughness for this conversations since I have corrected some obvious error.
No, you have shown where your beliefs depart from two thousand years of Christian beliefs.