The God of the Bible is not triune in nature.

If not A SINGLE THING was made without the Word (Jesus, see Rev 19:11-13) already being there with the Father as the NWT says in John 1:3, then Jesus can't be a created being. To say Jesus is created means there is at least ONE THING Jesus didn't create (himself), that he didn't truly create ALL things. This contradicts John 1:3. Futher, Isaiah says God HAD NO HELP in creation, he did it ALONE, BY HIMSELF...Pro is saying Jesus HELPED by creating for Jehovah.. Isaiah 44:24, in Pro's NWT states: "I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. WHO WAS WITH ME?" Since no one was "with" Jehovah when He created the earth, Jesus must be Jehovah! (KJV has "alone," "by myself") Pro makes an issue over Jesus being "given" power, but ignores God "receiving" power in Rev 4:11. ALL power would put Jesus on equality with the Father. (Matt 28:18) He claims there are many saviors in the Bible, doesn't list them, but quotes the very verse that disagrees with him: Acts 4:10-12, which says of Jesus "NEITHER IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER." So, if God is another being separate from Jesus, there can be no salvation in Him, because salvation is in NO ONE ELSE but Jesus. Hmmm. Pro says Jeus is merely the agent of salvation, in the face of Matt 1:21; Lu 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4; 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:11 which directly describe Jesus as THE Savior, not a mere agent. In Round 3 Pro again cites Ps 82:6 where God says "I said, 'You are gods'," but in that same passage he also called them "sons of the Most High." I have already proven this was sarcasm on God's part because their actions proved they were not sons of God. They defended the unjust and showed partiality to the wicked (vs 2), they walked in darkness (vs 5), that's why they fell under God's judgment in verse 1. 1 John 3:10 says "Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God." (NIV) These men in Psalm 82 were not doing what was right, so they were not sons of the Most High God. God was being sarcastic: these gods were false. If not, then they were true gods, leaving us in the ridiculous position of having more than one true God. Something is either true or false, isn't it? So were these true gods, or false gods? The "a god" at John 1:1 is not the work of Greek scholars, but of Unitarians who edited the original work of Newcomb. "It was decided to adopt Newcome"s text as the basis for the Unitarian version, to be EDITED and ADAPTED by Dr Thomas Belsham. This was published in 1808 as The New Testament in an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome"s New Translation, with a CORRECTED text. Newcome had died in 1800, and could not object; Bishop Stock, who was a relative of Newcome, protested, but to no effect. The fifth edition, 1819, bears the title Unitarian Version on the back." " Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 3, page 366 They CORRUPTED Newcomb's work after he died since they couldn't get away with it while he was alive. The last part of John 1:1 says "kai Theos en ho logos" - "and God was the Word." They inserted the "a" at John 1:1 because there is no definite article (ho/the) before theos in the Greek, i.e. NWT. But the word "theos" (without the definite article) is consistently translated, not as "a god," but as "God" in all the other places it occurs even in the NTIV and NWT, over 220 times, including Matt 19:26; 27:46; Mr 10:27; Luke 2:52; 12:21; John 1:6, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 8:54; 16:30; 20:17; Acts 5:39; 14:15; 17:23; 20:21; Rom 8:27, 33; 9:5; 13:1. So the "a god" contention is too weak. To be consistent with their claim that "theos" means "a god," they would have to translate John 1:6 "There came a man who was sent from [a god]," verse 13 "born from [a god]." This they don't do, but biasly create this rule for John 1:1. Further, in John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus "ho kurious mou kai ho Theos mou," literally, "the Lord of me and THE God of me," so if "THE God" means the true God in John 1:1, it must be identifying Jesus as the true God in John 20:28. Jesus isn't "a god" here, but is "THE God." "I have made you LIKE God TO PHARAOH." (Exo 7:1, NIV) "Like" shows a simile. Not that Moses was a god, but was "like" God, not to us the believers, but TO Pharaoh ONLY. The miracles Moses performed were interpreted by Pharaoh to mean Moses was like God, but even if "he" thought Moses was a god, that doesn't make Moses a god, does it? Most contemporary versions say with variations, "I have made you like/as God to Pharaoh" (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV). "I will make you seem like God to Pharaoh" (NLT). That's not the same thing as claiming "the Word was God," he "made ALL THINGS," he is "my God." (John 1:1-3; 20:28) Pro thinks Isa 10:21; 9:6 are talking about TWO mighty gods, contradicting Jehovah who says: "BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD." (Isa 44:6, NWT) "Does there exist a God besides me? NO,... I have recognized none." (Ias 44:8, NWT) Pro recognizes another mighty God BESIDES the Mighty God. How ironic. "With the exception of me there is no God." (Isa 45:5, NWT) " How much more plain can you get that Jehovah is the ONLY God. "There is no God but ONE." (1 Cor 8:4) I believe unclear passages should be interpreted in light of the clearer ones. We have many clear passages saying there is only one God which should influence out view of Psalm 82:1, 6. Had those judges gone around proclaiming themselves to be "gods" they would have been stoned! Everlasting Father, I agree, its not a title - its a name. "And his NAME shall be called...Everlasting Father." (Isa 9:6) On Psalm 104:30, the words "active" and "force" are not there in the Hebrew text and are never applied to the Holy Spirit in the Bible. This is an invention of Jehovah's Witnesses only in the NWT, but the Hebrew word ruach in this verse means "Spirit." We all know that God is a Spirit (John 4:24), and the angels and demons are spirits. Satan is a Spirit. In all these cases a Spirit is a person. Wikipedia defines "person" as: "an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood, for example in a particular moral or legal context.[2] Such capacities or attributes can include agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others." http://wzus1.search-results.com...... Based on this definition, the criteria I will use for the purpose of this debate, is "any living thing which possesses intelligence, rationality and consciousness." The Holy Spirit fits this definition: He has a mind and knowledge (intelligence) "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what the is the MIND of the Spirit" (Rom 8:27) "The things of God KNOWETH no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Cor 2:11) He reasons (rationality) For IT SEEMED GOOD to the Holy Ghost, and to us..." (Acts 15:2) He is self-aware (consciousness) "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them ." (Acts 13:2) The Holy Spirit Loves (Romans 15:30) and can be Grieved (Ephesians 4:30). Isaiah 63:10: "But they"rebelled and made his holy spirit FEEL HURT." (NWT) Micah 2:7: ""Is the Spirit of the Lord IMPATIENT? Are these His doings?" Hebrews 10:29: ""and has INSULTED the Spirit of grace?" Emotions are personal characteristics, not impersonal. The Holy Spirit Speaks (2 Samuel 23:1; Acts 8:29; 1Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 3:7-8; Revelation 2:7). He can be Lied to (Acts 5:3), Resisted (Acts 7:51), Tested (Acts 5:9), and Blasphemed (Matthew 12:32). He Witnesses (Acts 5:32, 1John 5:7), Glorifies Jesus (John 16:14), Teaches (John 14:26; 15:26), Makes Intercession (Romans 8:26), Anoints (1John 2:27), Appoints (Acts 20:28), and Convicts the world of sin (John 16:8). Surely these are not impersonal acts. Jesus was in heaven when Paul appealed to Him. How is that not prayer? On Granville Sharp's rule, Greek Scholar James White says: "The passage found at 2 Peter 1:1 is even more compelling. Some have simply by-passed grammatical rules and considerations, and have decided for an inferior translation on the basis of verse 2, which, they say, "clearly distinguishes" between God and Christ.(2) Such translation on the basis of theological prejudices is hardly commendable. The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English: 1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou 1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word."https://www.google.com... "FIRST-BORN" (Col 1:15) MEANS SUPREMACY OF POSITION: " PSALM 89:27: David, who was the last born son of Jesse, is called "first-born." (also Jer 31:9; Exo 4:22; Job 18:13) http://www.4jehovah.org... I'm out of space