The BIBLE Does not support the "TRINITY THEORY"

Hello Timeworn: Thank you for taking the time to consider my response to your topic. I think you're getting a bit off track here, however, and away from the subject of the Bible's support for the "trinity theory". But to comment briefly on the issue of translations that you brought up, throughout recent history (the last 5 centuries), there have been many translations of the Bible by many scholars, who had no alterior motives except to make the Word of God accessible to people in their own language and in some cases also many other foreign languages. The King James Version of the Bible (1608), was the first widely used English translation. And, while it is true, as you pointed out, that there were numerous errors in this edition, this was entirely due to the manuscripts that were available to the scholars of the time. Since then, many more manuscripts have been discovered, especially the huge archaeological find of what has been called the Dead Sea Scrolls, back in the late 1940's at Qumran. So the many translations that have been done especially in the last 50 to 60 years, have been recognized as being much more faithful to the original manuscripts which pre-date what was available to 17th century scholars. I myself use a better and more modern translation than the KJV, although I confess that my memory work is largely from the KJV, because that is what I grew up on. A particular translation, however, should not compromise our point of discussion at all if we make reference to the earliest available manuscripts. It probably isn't helpful or necessary to accuse so many dedicated and well-respected scholars with a lack of integrity by suggesting that they had a purpose other than the genuine desire to provide the best possible translation that they could for the benefit of the masses, during the era following the invention of Gutenberg's printing press about a century and a half earlier. On another point, altogether, I find it puzzling that you have mentioned the name "Jehovah" about 14 times, seeming to attach some special significance to it in connection with our debate, even though this name does nothing to either support or contradict what you refer to as the "trinity theory". And, regarding the names of God used in the Bible, there are a great many other names also, not just YHWH or Yahweh, commonly referred to in English as Jehovah. But the existence of other names for God in the Bible is also not the point, so I don't wish to sidetrack the debate by getting into a discussion of God's many various names. In the first round, however, and I would like to draw us both back to this key point, I made reference to the name Elohim used in Genesis Chapter 1 and verse 1, which fairly addresses your proposed topic of whether or not the Bible can support what you refer to as the "trinity theory". I'm not familiar with the Byington translation. If you were quoting this translation, it certainly has a very unusual character and English structure particularly with respect to the possessive form of the word "God's" ("At the beginning, God's created the heavens and the earth." Did you really mean "God is" created the heavens? Is that a reference to the phrase that God uses in the Old Testament to describe himself - "I Am That I Am". We could pursue this line a bit more, perhaps, but again, it seems tangential, at best, to the topic of the debate. However, putting this oddity aside, we perhaps don't need to get into a discussion of translations, as they're not integral to this debate anyway. We should focus on the words found in the ancient manuscripts. And the fact remains that although the word "trinity" does not exist in manuscripts, nor in any translation of which I'm aware, the concept is clearly present in both the Old and New Testaments in all translations. And, you yourself have acknowledged the fact of the plurality of the word Elohim that supports this position. Regards, Maestrostar