What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Prince of Kings?

K

King James

Guest
I was reading the KJV, Revelation 1:5. It describes Jesus as a prince of kings? I was thinking how much of a downgrade that is from king of kings and lord of lords. I was thinking maybe heir to all of their thrones? It still didn't really work for me. I then checked other versions: http://biblehub.com/revelation/1-5.htm It looks mostly the older versions have the prince of kings where most of the newer versions have ruler of kings. I checked an interlinear(attached to post) and the word where the bible versions are getting prince or ruler from is chief so it seems ruler was a better word to use.
 
King James said:
I was reading the KJV, Revelation 1:5. It describes Jesus as a prince of kings? I was thinking how much of a downgrade that is from king of kings and lord of lords. I was thinking maybe heir to all of their thrones? It still didn't really work for me. I then checked other versions: http://biblehub.com/revelation/1-5.htm It looks mostly the older versions have the prince of kings where most of the newer versions have ruler of kings. I checked an interlinear(attached to post) and the word where the bible versions are getting prince or ruler from is chief so it seems ruler was a better word to use.
Click to expand...

Below is Revelation. I am not sure where scripture can make Jesus anything. His authority comes from God His Father. Jesus seems to have done well. :)

John to the seven churches that are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and freed[d] us from our sins by his blood, 6 and made[e] us to be a kingdom, priests serving[f] his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

[d]Other ancient authorities read washed
[e] Gk and he made
[f] Gk priests to
 
King James said:
I was reading the KJV, Revelation 1:5. It describes Jesus as a prince of kings? I was thinking how much of a downgrade that is from king of kings and lord of lords. I was thinking maybe heir to all of their thrones? It still didn't really work for me. I then checked other versions: http://biblehub.com/revelation/1-5.htm It looks mostly the older versions have the prince of kings where most of the newer versions have ruler of kings. I checked an interlinear(attached to post) and the word where the bible versions are getting prince or ruler from is chief so it seems ruler was a better word to use.
Click to expand...


uhm those are terms that we lowely humans can understand. that is all. so jesus isn't the prince of peace? if you want to say that isn't right then ask god why he didn't say KING of peace. well one could argue that he was the king of salem, salem is related to shalom thus peace
 
Not sure where the arguments are coming from. It's like we are speaking in different languages. A prince compared to earthly kings didn't sound right to me. I checked the interlinear which in fact did confirm that the older translations with the exception of the YLT were poorly translated as chief which is translated to ruler in the newer translations is more accurate to show that Jesus is over earthly kings and not under earthly kings. I feel my first post and this one are black and white. I'll respond to my opinion of posts.

Randy-First sentence? Jesus vs. poorly translated scripture that I already clarified equals man's ability to authenticate or not the deity of the Son?
After that cut and paste a newer version of the script that I already said I agreed with.

Sinthesis-Archon has the meaning of ruler or lord. The new translations rightly use ruler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon

jasoncran-Comparing prince of kings which already verified as poor translation to prince of peace. I don't think Jesus in comparison to peace has anything to do with the context in the Revelation verse to prince in comparison to kings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ok in jewish thought King of kings means he is above all kings in ruling it doesn't mean that he was a literal king. just that he operates like one. that is all im getting at. words are used to show us what we can understand about god.

who can the son of a KING be also a king? the father referred in the tanach as the LORD is also said to be a king.

thus" the LORD said unto MY LORD sit here unto thy enemies be put under thy footstool"
 
I agree with your post. While the prince of a human father and son King and Prince operate a little differently with the King needing to die or to be old and the Prince needing to take a wife to make him a King. At point they still both are Kings, both still alive, just one retired. With God, since the father and the son are the same, they can both be Kings. I understand that the terms that we use are for just for our own understanding. These are the references that we have in the bible and they still have to make sense comparatively in the text. Without our frame of reference though what do we have, and how can we talk about what we know? It would be like the sacred name theory people having a conversation with someone using the name Jesus and every time the name Jesus was used they would chime in, that's not his real name so your not really talking about the son of God. Even though they know who you mean, they still decide to disrupt the flow of the conversation until the conversation is not worth to be had.
 
King James said:
I agree with your post. While the prince of a human father and son King and Prince operate a little differently with the King needing to die or to be old and the Prince needing to take a wife to make him a King. At point they still both are Kings, both still alive, just one retired. With God, since the father and the son are the same, they can both be Kings. I understand that the terms that we use are for just for our own understanding. These are the references that we have in the bible and they still have to make sense comparatively in the text. Without our frame of reference though what do we have, and how can we talk about what we know? It would be like the sacred name theory people having a conversation with someone using the name Jesus and every time the name Jesus was used they would chime in, that's not his real name so your not really talking about the son of God. Even though they know who you mean, they still decide to disrupt the flow of the conversation until the conversation is not worth to be had.
Click to expand...
uhm the FATHER didn't retire.he still reigns.

when moses wrote of the torah whom was he calling God? YHWH or jesus? its the YHWH and that name is always the father, yet when moses asks to see glory. he sees whom? jesus! and yet the word YHWH is used in that name when He talks.
 
You didn't see how the first part of the post was a comparison of a human prince and king?
 
I know that but Im correcting you in that father isn't on the throne. the YHWH never lost the throne. he merely delegated it to the son. that is all im saying(figurately).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top