Bible Study Modern Versions Lowering the Person of Jesus Christ

[AVBunyan]

For those of you who like the modern versions and think they don’t affect doctrines – how about the doctrine of deity of Jesus Christ. If for no other reason these modern versions should be discarded based upon how they handle the passage below.

(KJV)Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Now, the KJV says that Christ is from everlasting thus making Christ eternal.

(NIV and others)Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

The NIV and many other versions say that Christ has origins he is from ancient of days – this does not make Christ eternal. This is false doctrine – dangerous teaching – an attack on the Saviour!

Now, why would someone want to read a book like that? Then one says, “Well, the newer versions defend the doctrine of Christ in other places.†All it takes is one corruption to stink up the place. This verse attacks the deity of Christ and some folks don’t care.

Now, what are you going to do about – just continue to complain about the old archaic English of the KJV and ignore passages like the above? It won’t stop you – you will continue to ready version that pick at the doctrine of Christ.

Do you know what would be an interesting study – let’s see how the MVs describe the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. I’m not talking about his deity for this has been covered though some folks still can’t see it (I Cor. 2:14). You believe “that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence†don’t you – Col. 1:18? Wouldn’t that be an interesting study to see how the AV and the MVs compare in describing the charter of the Saviour?

Preeminence
The quality or state of being pre["e]minent; superiority in prominence or in excellence; distinction above others in quality, rank, etc.; rarely, in a bad sense, superiority or notoriety in evil; as, pre["e]minence in honor.

Supremacy
The state of being supreme, or in the highest station of power; highest or supreme authority or power; as, the supremacy of a king or a parliament.

Preeiminence comes from eminent:
1. High; lofty; as an eminent place. Ezek.16.
2. Exalted in rank; high in office; dignified; distinguished. Princes hold eminent stations in society, as do ministers, judges and legislators.
3. High in public estimation; conspicuous; distinguished above others

The difference you ask?
Supremacy speaks of just being the highest in power – any earthly king can have the supremacy
Hitler had the supremacy in Germany. Caligua had the supremacy in Rome.

Preeminence carries with it not only being above all others but also carries with it excellence and dignity.

Ok, which word betters describes the Saviour?

Why don’t you just do a study and see how the MVs describe the Saviour in other passages.

The above two examples will not stop folks from reading the modern versions – as long as it contains the ââ‚Å“message†they are fine with the lowering of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I just presented two examples - there are mor but the above two should be sufficient enough.

God bless

 

[Free]

:roll:

 

[AVBunyan]

In Agreement

:roll:

Thanks for comments Free - I learned much from your rolling eyes.

So - I can see from your well thought out response that either:

1. My assessment is wrong regarding the above verses?
2. You think there is no issue or it is not important or...
3. You don't have a problem with the newer versions lowering the person of Christ.

 

[Free]

I learned much from your rolling eyes

They are the windows of my soul. ;)

I choose 4: the whole KJVO position is rather absurd and completely unreasonable and void of all logic. But this does include position 1, so I will discuss that.

First, it assumes (surprise) that the KJV has the correct rendering and other versions do not. And second, it ignores the many other verses where the KJV and the newer versions agree on the full deity of Christ.

I also wonder why you can't answer some of the objections to your position in one thread and then go and start a different thread. Is it because you know the KJVO position is indefensible and all one can do to "defend" is to attack all other positions?

 

[element80]

If you want to be able to read the most accurate copy of the Bible, then I'm afraid you must learn Hebrew and Ancient Greek. Something is always lost in the translation.

 

[AVBunyan]

Scriptural Authority for the AV1611

I also wonder why you can't answer some of the objections to your position in one thread and then go and start a different thread. Is it because you know the KJVO position is indefensible and all one can do to "defend" is to attack all other positions?

I can't remember every post or response - since you have brought this up twice show me the objections I can't answer.

Also, are you saying it is ok to read versions that attck the deity of Christ like the verse I showed you?

By the way - I may have some more threads to start - doesn't that excite you?

Also, since you mentioned the KJVO postion is indefensible I thought I'd add a little on that. Of course I do no expect you agree with any of it but that's fine.

Scriptural Authority for the AV1611

I’ve glanced at several forums and those who have issues with the King James Bible and those who believe it seem to think they have finally found the “unanswerable†question. Their favorite “stumper†is, “show me scriptural authority for the AV1611 being God’s perfect word.â€Â

Before we let the scriptures speak let’s look at this “heavy†request. You folks relish this phrase for you think that we King James Bible believers fall apart when you come up with your “magical†phrase. Let me ask you some a simple question: Where is your scriptural authority for light bulbs and bathrooms in your church building? You folks are amusing. I don’t know you got the idea we made this KJV issue an official doctrine of the faith or a fundamental of the faith.

We believe this – God inspired his word – we have it in a book – the book is called: The King James Bible, The Authorized Version, The Av1611, etc. We just happen to believe the God’s word and words are found a book called one of the above. If is translated under Edward VI then I guess it would be called the King Edward Bible of 1546! I don’t what you call it – we call it God’s word – it just happens to been translated in 1611 under King James I of England.

Now – you folks are looking for scriptural authority for what we hold in our hands as being God’s word. What you are saying is you want me to find the term “The King James Bible is perfect†or similar wording in any Bible. I haven’t found it and don’t expect to – don’t have to. I don’t need to find that phrase or any similar phrase. I guess it depends on what your final authority is. Where do you go to prove anything you want to prove some spiritual truth? You go to some version. We just happen to go to a King James Bible.

Flush your multiple, conflicting Greek and Hebrew authorities down the toilet for a moment and let’s look at what the book we believe says about itself - the internal evidence contained between the pages we can hold in our hands. In other words our final authority is what we hold in our hands – a King James Bible you can get from any Wal-Mart for $4.95. If I believe my final authority is a King James Bible then to be consistent I will use the Kin James Bible as my authority for this “scriptural authority†you folks are looking for. We already know what your final “authorities†are – “reliable†translations, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, professors, and of course your own sinful self.

Do I expect you to believe this? Of course not – your standing amongst the “brethren†and “recognized experts†depends upon you staying in agreement with them and the world. I wouldn’t think you would have the courage to step out against the world on this issue. So, stay safe and secure in your stand with the world and the devil.

What I’m going to present is nothing new to you Bible-believing folks – just trying to lift up the book. If what I am fixing to present is not enough evidence of the Bible-rejecters then so what – could care less – I can’t show them anything anyway – it is God that must take the blinders off – II Cor. 4:3, I Cor. 2:14.

First of all what is the word of God? God is perfect and pure so there whatever he speaks (whether one word or many) is perfect and pure also. If God is all-seeing and all-powerful hen his word must be also. Question, do you believe God’s word is written down? If they are and they are God’s words then they are perfect and pure or…don’t call it the word of God. If you say your version has errors then call it a “book that contains some of the words of God†but…don’t call your version the “word of God.â€Â

According to Luke 3:4; II Cor. 2:17; 4:2, and Rom. 15:4 the word is written. According to II Tim. 3:15, 16 and any English dictionary scripture is words or words which is or are written down on paper. And according to II Tim. 16 if it is scripture it has to be inspired – if it is inspired then it is scripture. Timothy, in vs. 15, had the scriptures. According to vs. 16 they were inspired and they were not the originals.

When the Lord referred to the scriptures in Matt. 21:42 and others he was referring to what was written down and according to II Tim. 3:16 they were inspired.

So, according to the book I have in my hand then God’s word and words can be written down and they can be inspired without being the originals. If they are inspired then they are pure and perfect for God is pure and perfect.

It is interesting to note that the scriptures have many of the same attributes of the Godhead.

Now – God is pure – so his words must be and…according to Ps. 12:6; 119:140; Psa. 30:5 they are.
(Most of the newer versions change “pure†to “flawless†– not the same.)
God is powerful so His word must be and according to Heb. 4:12 it is.
(Most of the newer versions change “powerful†to “active†– not the same.)
God is all-seeing so His word must be and according to Rom. 9:17 it is.
God is eternal so his word must be also and it is according to Psa. 119:89.
God is discerning of the heart and according to Heb. 4:12 his word is also.
God gives comfort and according to II Cor. 1:3 and the scriptures do also – Rom. 15:4.
Jesus is called the Word of God according to Rev. 19:13 and the written word is also called the word of God (see above verses).
Jesus was in the beginning creating the world according to John 1:1 and Col. 1:16 and the word was there also – Heb. 11:3.
Jesus is holy according to Acts 4:27 and many others and his word is according to II Tim. 3:15.
Jesus’ name is magnified above all according to Phil. 2:9 and his word is magnified above even his own name according to Psa. 138:2.
(Many of the new versions change Psa. 138:2 so the word is just equal with his name – not the same thing.)
Jesus is alive according to many verses and so is his word according to Heb. 4:12.
Jesus foresaw future events for was The Prophet and his word foresaw future events according to Gal. 3:8.
Jesus will judge in future times and his word will also according to John 12:48.

Looks like to me that the King James Bible tells me that it is the inspired word of God. Yours may say similar but not as clearly and precisely as mine.

One more thought – I have mentioned this before but these same folks say that none of the major doctrines are changed in the modern versions. Really? How about justification? Look at Rom. 3:22 and Gal. 2:16 – not the two letter word “ofâ€Â. Here “the faith of Jesus Christ†justifies. Look at any new version including the NKJV and notice that the word “of†has been changed to “in†thus making “your†faith as the one that justifies – wrong, wicked, vile! Your faith can not justify only Christ’s faith justifies. The difference you say? The difference is heaven or a lake of fire.

Now, you unbelievers would say that your versions say similar – yes they do and they contain a lot of other junk also. But does that mean they are Bibles? Because you can find a diamond ring in a septic tank doesn’t make the septic tank a jewelry store. Because you can find the fundamentals of the faith in the newer versions doesn’t make them Bibles. You need to learn something about how the devil works – his method is one of counterfeit and deception. He is interested in being close to the real thing so as to confuse and draw away.

Unless you know the real thing then you will be deceived by the counterfeit – II Cor. 11; I Thess. 2:13!

In summary – The above will not convince the unbelievers – but for me I look at the book I have in my hands and it declares itself to be the inspired word of God.

May God bless!

 

[Judy]

In summary – The above will not convince the unbelievers – but for me I look at the book I have in my hands and it declares itself to be the inspired word of God.

AVBunyan, I have all due respect for you, but it sounds like you are making your King James Bible a god... :-? Keep in mind that it is a translation also.
I think the more literal translation is the NASB. :wink:

 

[Khristeeanos]

Colossians 2:9 (NIV)
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Seems pretty clear to me.

Titus 2:13 (NIV)
while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Titus 2:13 (KJV)
13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

The NIV has Jesus as our God and Savior, while the KJV seperates them.

I guess that means that the KJV robs Jesus of His deity.

 

[AVBunyan]

Bible worship

AVBunyan, I have all due respect for you, but it sounds like you are making your King James Bible a god... :-? Keep in mind that it is a translation also. I think the more literal translation is the NASB. :wink:

Judy thank you for your respect for me - that means much to me.

I place a lot of emphasis on this subject because I believe without the word of God God does not speak to a saint. I don't believe in visions or God speaking audibly to sainst today. So, without God's true words what does one have? I believe God's words are contained in the KJV. I do not worship the book - I bend the pages and write in the margins and underline words - it is not God.

But I ask you to read my earlier response under "The new versions lower the person of Christ" and see where I compare the attributes of the Saviour with the written word. I believe the word itself places a high estimation on itself.

But if there were no people - no time - nothing written - only God and eternity then if God spoke would not the words he spoke be holy and important? What if God in eternity wrote down what he spoke - would they not be the pure words of God and be considered precious and powerful and esteemed?

Well, that is what some of believe about the AV1611 - we believe what is contained in the AV are God's words and are to be esteemed highly. I do not believe the modern versions are the word of God though they may contain some of God's words.

Yes, all the versions contain the "message" of God but not all the words of God so therefore I cannot with a clear conscence call the newer versions "the" word of God.

I make a big issue out of this AV issue because I firmly believe that much of the confusion and lack of strong spiritual lives today is a result of not having the pure words of God - God's words have been watered down thus stunted spritual growth is teh result - I will hold on to this belief till I go home to glory - I am firmly convinced the modern versions have hurt Christianity.

I look at history since the publication of the AV1611 and stand amazed at the results. I do not see the same results in the modern versions.

I don't make an issue because it is "King James" or the AV", etc. It could be "Cromwell's Versin" but what I'm fixed on are the words contained within those pages - I believe they are the very words of God and I desire for others to see that so they can have confidence that they do have god's words without doubt and I believe this produces fruit, boldness, and a more love for the one who wrote it.

I trust you understand my heart more on the matter - I'm not trying to win a debate here - just tryin to get folks to see that within the pages of the King James Bible are the pure and living words of the living God and this should draw saints closer to their Saviour.

May God bless

 

[Free]

Also, are you saying it is ok to read versions that attck the deity of Christ like the verse I showed you?

I'm saying you haven't proven anything regarding a version "attacking" the deity of Christ. There is a difference in renderings but you assume that the KJV is right and others are wrong. That is a fallacious argument unless you can prove the point. But neither of us are Greek or Hebrew scholars so we should both just leave such abiguities alone. As I and DIME have pointed out, there are many places in the NIV where Christ is shown to be fully God. See John 1:1-14 for another example.

By the way - I may have some more threads to start - doesn't that excite you?

I wish I could say yes AV. :wink:

Let me ask you some a simple question: Where is your scriptural authority for light bulbs and bathrooms in your church building? You folks are amusing.

Your analogy is pointless to the question asked. KJVOists claim the KJV is authorized by God and ought to be the only one used. But no one is claiming anything about lightbulbs and bathrooms in the church. If someone thought as much, then I would ask them to show me in Sciprture.

I don’t know you got the idea we made this KJV issue an official doctrine of the faith or a fundamental of the faith.

Perhaps it's from everything you and every other KJVOist says.

Flush your multiple, conflicting Greek and Hebrew authorities down the toilet for a moment

In other words, forget the abundant manuscript evidence. :-?

We already know what your final “authorities†are – “reliable†translations, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, professors, and of course your own sinful self.

Do you realize how arrogant and self-righteous this sounds?

Of course not – your standing amongst the “brethren†and “recognized experts†depends upon you staying in agreement with them and the world. I wouldn’t think you would have the courage to step out against the world on this issue. So, stay safe and secure in your stand with the world and the devil.

Hey look! More self-righteousness.

God is perfect and pure so there whatever he speaks (whether one word or many) is perfect and pure also. If God is all-seeing and all-powerful hen his word must be also. Question, do you believe God’s word is written down? If they are and they are God’s words then they are perfect and pure or…don’t call it the word of God. If you say your version has errors then call it a “book that contains some of the words of God†but…don’t call your version the “word of God.â€Â

This is a prime example of poor reasoning. This completely ignores translation difficulties from one language to any other language. It also ignores the variancies found in most manuscripts. It also ignores this:

Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." (KJV) <-- error

Ex. 20:13, "You shall not murder." (NASB) <-- correct

One single error, and there are more, proves you wrong. Period.

Now, you unbelievers would say that your versions say similar – yes they do and they contain a lot of other junk also. But does that mean they are Bibles? Because you can find a diamond ring in a septic tank doesn’t make the septic tank a jewelry store. Because you can find the fundamentals of the faith in the newer versions doesn’t make them Bibles. You need to learn something about how the devil works – his method is one of counterfeit and deception. He is interested in being close to the real thing so as to confuse and draw away.

This reminds me of wise words from a prof: "Ignorance isn't bliss, it's bondage."

 

[AVBunyan]

Attack upon the deity of Christ

Also, are you saying it is ok to read versions that attack the deity of Christ like the verse I showed you?

I'm saying you haven't proven anything regarding a version "attacking" the deity of Christ.

Are you telling me the reading from the NIV and others on Mic. 5:2 does not declare that Christ had origins?

Here are some links so you can see for yourself - plain as day that the new versions lower the person of Jesus Christ.

http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/nasvdeityofchrist.htm
http://www.learnthebible.org/Only%20Begotten%20Son.htm
http://www.avpublications.com/5_critiqu ... bg_pt3.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/compare.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.html
http://www.tecmalta.org/tft121.htm
http://www.fillthevoid.org/Versions/Differences-1.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/am ... expose.htm

Hey Free - How many more would you like - are you going to read any of them or just say that is just "old stuff"? What will you do about this issue?

See the works of Terrry Watkins from his website below and you tell me there is no attack. http://www.av1611.org/attack.html

"In Philippians 2:6, The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The new translations completely re-word the verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ! The NIV, RSV, NASV, NRSV, NKJV(1979 ed.), etc. reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,"

Someone is attacking the most important doctrine in the Bible - the deity of Jesus Christ!"

What else do you need to have to show you the modern versions attack the deity of Christ. The links above are just a few I grabbed from google doing a simple search! There is much more.

So Free you were saying:
I'm saying you haven't proven anything regarding a version "attacking" the deity of Christ.

God bless

 

[Khristeeanos]

AV, your arguments hold absolutely no water with me because I showed 100% clearly that the NIV upholds the deity of Christ.

If the NIV translators were going to try to remove or hid the deity of Christ in their version, they sure did a lousy job.

They would had to have removed ALL references to the deity of Christ. They did not.

 

[AVBunyan]

Deity

1. AV, your arguments hold absolutely no water with me because I showed 100% clearly that the NIV upholds the deity of Christ.

2. If the NIV translators were going to try to remove or hid the deity of Christ in their version, they sure did a lousy job.

3. They would had to have removed ALL references to the deity of Christ. They did not.

First - did you study the links I provided?

1. In many places the NIV does uphold the deity of Christ - but the fact it doesn't in other places should be a concern. Again, what are you going to do about Mic. 5:2?

2. They did - you are right - but in a sense they did a bang up job for they have put just enough of the truth in there to fool the masses - got you huh? The key is subtle deception. Satan didn't come at Eve with horns and a pitchfork - he came and questioned what God said, Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? This is one of the reaons for the new versions - to create doubt in what God said.

No, the NIV translators didn't want to scare eveybody off - who is to say that all those folks are truely spiritual folks anyway - anybody can come up with a translation - we got over a 100 of them now. Kind of like Burger King - "You can have it your way!"

3. Ditto - see point 2 above

Again Dime - one more time with feeling - What are you going to do about Mic. 5:2? and the links I provided?

In reality - I can show you nothing - only God can open up your eyes.

God bless

 

[cubedbee]

Re: Deity

1. In many places the NIV does uphold the deity of Christ - but the fact it doesn't in other places should be a concern. Again, what are you going to do about Mic. 5:2?

Why should it be a concern? The deity of Christ is clearly and plainly presented throughout all modern versions. Except to fanatics worshipping a false idol, the KJV is not a standard to be adhered to. Just because the KJV translators wrongly translated extra verses to support the deity of Christ, doesn't mean modern versions should carry on those mistakes.

2. They did - you are right - but in a sense they did a bang up job for they have put just enough of the truth in there to fool the masses - got you huh? The key is subtle deception. Satan didn't come at Eve with horns and a pitchfork - he came and questioned what God said, Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? This is one of the reaons for the new versions - to create doubt in what God said.

No, the NIV translators didn't want to scare eveybody off - who is to say that all those folks are truely spiritual folks anyway - anybody can come up with a translation - we got over a 100 of them now. Kind of like Burger King - "You can have it your way!"

Yes, Satan deceives subtly. However, how can removing a small fraction of all references to the deity of Christ deceive anyone? Anyone who reads the NIV in its entirety is going to know that Jesus is God. Period. There is no deception going on.

3.
Again Dime - one more time with feeling - What are you going to do about Mic. 5:2? and the links I provided?

First, my modern version says eternity. Second, other modern versions all have a footnote indicating it can be translated eternity. Third, its poetic language. Jesus has been around for all eternity. So yes, it's technically incorrect to speak of him as being "from ancient times" since ancient times have finite duration. But, it is equally technically incorect to speak of him as being "from of old" since age implies a begining. If you can distort the NIV into saying that Jesus had a beginning, I can just as easily distort the KJV into saying the same thing.

 

[AVBunyan]

Re: Deity

1. Why should it be a concern? The deity of Christ is clearly and plainly presented throughout all modern versions.

2. However, how can removing a small fraction of all references to the deity of Christ deceive anyone?

3. I can just as easily distort the KJV into saying the same thing.

1. Because it is right in other places make it right when it is wrong in others? Do you want a Bible that in places the deity is upheld but in others it is not? Do you like reading a flawed text that picks at the Saviour? Because you can find a diamond in a trash can does that make the trash can a jewlery store?

2. Because it is false doctrine - it is against God to lower His Son down to having origins? This doesn't bother you? Have you ever read what Origen believes (the original philosopher who came up with these corrupt texts in the 3rd centurty)?

3. Only if you change the words.

Did you look at the links I provided on the other thread?

God bless

 

[cubedbee]

Re: Deity

[]

1. Because it is right in other places make it right when it is wrong in others?

It is the KJV that is wrong.

Do you want a Bible that in places the deity is upheld but in others it is not?

Yes, I do. All Bible's do this, including the KJV.

Do you like reading a flawed text that picks at the Saviour?

I enjoy reading flawed texts about my saviour, including the KJV. I don't read any that "picks at" the savior---none of the modern versions do.

Because you can find a diamond in a trash can does that make the trash can a jewlery store?

My point exactly. The KJV has a lot of good stuff about it, but ultimately it is a trash can like any other flawed human translation.

2.

Because it is false doctrine - it is against God to lower His Son down to having origins?

It is false doctrine to do this. None of the modern versions do this.

3. Only if you change the words.

Nope, the words as they are written. All I have to do is ignore the rest of the Bible and interpret the words as they are written to say something I know is false. Just as you are doing with the modern versions---knowingly making false accusations against the word of God.

Did you look at the links I provided on the other thread?

Don't really see the point. You begin with the false assumption that the KJV is the perfect Word of God. It is not.

 

[Free]

"In Philippians 2:6, The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The new translations completely re-word the verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ! The NIV, RSV, NASV, NRSV, NKJV(1979 ed.), etc. reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,"

First, the word for "robbery," as used in the KJV, is harpagmos. The very meaning of this word carries the idea of something "forcibly retained," "grasped," "siezed". Second, what is it that you fail to understand about "being in very nature God"? Is that an attack on the deity of Christ? That is an explicit declaration of the deity of Christ.

This is what we have:

KJV: "being in the form of God"
NIV,NASB: "being in very nature God"

KJV: "thought it not robbery to be"
NIV,NASB: "did not consider...something to be grasped"

KJV: "equal with God"
NIV,NASB: "equality with God"

These are clearly saying the exact same thing and I would think the newer translations are more clear in what is being stated. To say that the newer versions are attacking the deity of Christ in this passage really is asinine.

Again Dime - one more time with feeling - What are you going to do about Mic. 5:2?

I know I'm not DIME, but I just wanted to post something on this:

Da. 7:9, "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire."

7:13, "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him."

7:22, "Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

And that is from the KJV. It's not saying that God is not eternal, is it?

 

[AVBunyan]

Re: Deity

My point exactly. The KJV has a lot of good stuff about it, but ultimately it is a trash can like any other flawed human translation.

My soul! to call the book that God blessed and people died for for centuries a trash can is really sad.

Your view of history is not providential I see. You trust man with God's words - I do not. I believe when those men sat down in 1611 that God was directing their affairs as he does in all things. Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

So - what you are really saying is that you do not have anywhere an inifallible innerant Bible that you can trust to be fully God's words? If you believe that then you are in agreement with the world.

When I asked you about the links you responded:

"Don't really see the point. You begin with the false assumption that the KJV is the perfect Word of God. It is not."

What does that have to do with the links and a false assumption - the purpose of the links was to show the work of the new versions regarding the deity of Christ. Do you disagree with their findigs? Did those folks make those things up - it is there in black and white!

I, by faith, believe the King James is the word of God. And after reading the history of the lives this book has affected has confirmed my beliefe.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

Origins

7:22, "Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

And that is from the KJV. It's not saying that God is not eternal, is it?

The problem is not with the ancient of days - the problem is that Mic. 5:2 says Jesus Christ had "origins" -

"whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Christ had no origins - he is eternal.

Yes, the modern versions uphold the deity of Christ in many places but in other places it is very suspect. The King James does a better job of upholding the person of Christ - based upon that alone folks should leave the modern versioins alone!

God bless

 

[cubedbee]

Re: Deity

My soul! to call the book that God blessed and people died for for centuries a trash can is really sad.

Yet its not sad for you to call modern versions, which God has also blessed and for whom people have also died, the same thing? Because the KJV has been around a few more hundred years I am sad?

Your view of history is not providential I see. You trust man with God's words - I do not.

No, actually you are the one trusting men. I trust God's Word, Jesus Crist. God has spoken his words to men who have recorded them, and we have but an imperfect translation of them. I trust God, who speaks to my heart. You trust men, who translated the KJV.

I believe when those men sat down in 1611 that God was directing their affairs as he does in all things.

If God directs all affairs, then I could just as easily argue that God was directing the affairs of the NIV translators when they sat down. So, what makes one better than the other?

So - what you are really saying is that you do not have anywhere an inifallible innerant Bible that you can trust to be fully God's words

Such a thing does not, nor never has, existed. God's infallible Word is Jesus Christ.

If you believe that then you are in agreement with the world.

If you believe the sun will come up tomorrow, you are in agreement with the world. How is that relevant?

What does that have to do with the links and a false assumption - the purpose of the links was to show the work of the new versions regarding the deity of Christ. Do you disagree with their findigs? Did those folks make those things up - it is there in black and white!

As has been repeated repeatedly in this thread, all modern versions clearly proclaim the diety of Christ. I have read them and I know this. Your links aren't going to change this fact. THe exact translation of an individual verse does not affect overall doctrine. All kinds of false claims can be made by looking at verses out of context, and this is one of them.