The Deity of Christ and Modern Versions and Modern Versions

[AKJVReader]

Many religions had this 'son of God' thing. The Egyptians did for sure, and I'm confident the Babylonians did too.

The son of god thing was a common belief in many pagan cultures.

So if Neb was talking about 'the son of god' you can be sure that he meant the son of his god. Bel or Merodach or something.

That is interesting, Neb thought that the fourth person "is like the Son of God." He might have meant one of his gods, but i think it is there in Daniel to let us know that Jesus was there. God also had His presence in the temple and tabernacle too! And didn't some of the prophets see God or hear from Him? I dont think Neb knew it was Jesus in the fire but what he said is right so that we can understand the story, there were no Jews witnessing the men going into the fire, so Neb was the best witness to comment.

He might have heard from Daniel, but David and Solomon were long dead.

Daniel was a smart guy! He would easily have known about David and Solomon and there lives, better than the average Jew.

If he had a demon in him, that's something else, and you can't really expect the translators to place a demon's opinion in their version and call it a 'translation', can you???

I think you have overlooked the fact that when the demons saw Jesus in the Gospels they cried out and said that He was the Son of God and were terribly afraid.

 

[Alabaster]

The son of god thing was a common belief in many pagan cultures.



That is interesting, Neb thought that the fourth person "is like the Son of God." He might have meant one of his gods, but i think it is there in Daniel to let us know that Jesus was there. God also had His presence in the temple and tabernacle too! And didn't some of the prophets see God or hear from Him? I dont think Neb knew it was Jesus in the fire but what he said is right so that we can understand the story, there were no Jews witnessing the men going into the fire, so Neb was the best witness to comment.



Daniel was a smart guy! He would easily have known about David and Solomon and there lives, better than the average Jew.



I think you have overlooked the fact that when the demons saw Jesus in the Gospels they cried out and said that He was the Son of God and were terribly afraid.

Good response.

 

[for_his_glory]

As you can see in all the scriptures from Genesis chapter one to chapter twelve there is no mention of God creating any form of religion. We see God making a covenant with his people and how even after the covenant promises God made to Noah and to Abraham and his seed how man still turned away from God unto their own imaginations.

The original languages where Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The original manuscripts, (Dead Sea Scrolls), where all written in such languages. Our English translation for words can take on several meanings of a word that can change the whole context or meaning of a word. When King James had the original manuscripts translated into English I do not feel it was the intent of mans heart to change any of the original writings, but the meaning of some of the words were changed through misinterpretation of the original meaning of the word like in John 3:5 the word water and Spirit should read word and Spirit as water is a Greek definition of word. This is why it is so very important to have the Holy Spirit teach you Gods word for the way God spoke it through his prophets and disciples.

The below verses are what is important for our salvation and Spiritual growth in the word of God and if we are allowing the Holy Spirit teach us then we will learn to discern the errors that are being written by man. I can only read and speak one language and that is English, but it is only by the Holy Spirit making confirmation of what I am reading to be truth or error.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1John 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

 

[AKJVReader]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1John 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Great post for_his_glory

And the Holy Spirit agrees with the Scriptures. And the Holy Spirit agrees with the Deity of Christ.

 

[kiwimac]

There are no "corrupt Alexandrian texts", no diminution of Christ's deity in the NIV, no homosexual on the NIV translation committee and finally no changing of doctrines on the basis of translations.

What there is, is an heretical belief which attempts to make a 17thC English translation of the Bible into a creedal statement, a belief which attempts to arrogate to itself the right to decide that a dated, stilted English translation is the standard by which other English translations should be judged and which casts aspersion on Godly folk doing their part in making God's words available to all people.

Finally, there is a belief which although it has no biblical basis, no scriptural support at all and no basis in history either attempts to define who and who is not a Christian solely on the basis of the English Bible translation that they use.

 

[Stormcrow]

{41} Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. Luke 2:41 (KJV)

{48} And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. Luke 2:48 (KJV)

Ooops. Looks like old King James got some 'splainin' to do!

It's a pointless objection, really. Even men who adopt children not their own are still called "father."

 

[Hitch]

KJV only is a classic case of the blind leading the crazy. It plays to a very strange mindset and its arguments are among the most worthless invented.

 

[Asyncritus]

KJV only is a classic case of the blind leading the crazy. It plays to a very strange mindset and its arguments are among the most worthless invented.

Hey Hitch

It's lasted 400 years and is still in use today. Why's that, do you think?

Which other translation or book can claim to be 400 years old and still in use today?

Say 100,000 used it every year for 400 years. That's 40,000,000. There's that many crazies in the world?

BTW, they still teach Shakespeare all over the world. So you gotta lotta crazies in the classrooms teaching our kids too. Let's wipe 'em out, shall we?

 

[Hitch]

Hey Hitch

It's lasted 400 years and is still in use today. Why's that, do you think?

Which other translation or book can claim to be 400 years old and still in use today?

Say 100,000 used it every year for 400 years. That's 40,000,000. There's that many crazies in the world?

BTW, they still teach Shakespeare all over the world. So you gotta lotta crazies in the classrooms teaching our kids too. Let's wipe 'em out, shall we?

I see you assume every user is counted among the KJV only idiots.

That is a poor assumption and founded equally with most of the claims the 'only' s make.

 

[jasoncran]

doth thou speak english ?

or do you speak english?

shakespear is a classic and is that way for a good reason but lets be real. i can also confuse you with word for word comparison of the masoretic text from the jews side by side with the kjv.

so what a more modern version comes out and reads a bit different.

as long as no major words are left out whats the difference.

theres two version i wont read
the amplified and also the nwt and that gender neutral niv

 

[Asyncritus]

I see you assume every user is counted among the KJV only idiots.

That is a poor assumption and founded equally with most of the claims the 'only' s make.

You're probably right.

But I do hate people knocking something that's not only good, but very great.

Are you knocking it, or just the 'only' bit?

 

[Asyncritus]

doth thou speak english ?

or do you speak english?

I do both. And so did you when you were married. Remember the bit 'I take thee to be...?'

shakespear is a classic and is that way for a good reason but lets be real. i can also confuse you with word for word comparison of the masoretic text from the jews side by side with the kjv.

No word for word translation is any use, as you really should know, jason. The syntax is usually entirely different, even in any two modern languages you could name.

If you translate the Afrikaans 'Elke dag wandal ek poskantoor toe' word for word into English, you get: 'Every day stroll I post office to' which is nearly but not quite meaningless.

Similarly b'resheeth bara elohim eth hashamayim w'eth ha'aretz translates word for word into in a beginning created God XXX the heavens andxxx the earth.

The word order is different even in this simple example - and there are particles (xxx above) which cannot be translated at all.

So what would be the point of producing a word for word translation?

The KJV and every other English version would look silly.

so what a more modern version comes out and reads a bit different.

I'm not objecting to 'a bit different'. What I can't be sure about is just how big is that 'bit'.

Here's John 1:1

1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ASV
1 ¶ From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.BBE
1 ¶ in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.CJB
1 ¶ The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,MSG

A 'bit' different did you say? Which one do you place confidence in?

as long as no major words are left out whats the difference.

There's a colossal difference, even where a single letter in the original is concerned. What about those places where whole verses are left out? No difference?

theres two version i wont read
the amplified and also the nwt and that gender neutral niv

You may be wise about the nwt and the niv, but you are making a big mistake about the amplified. It's really helpful, and the way it presents alternatives is brilliant.

Some joker on another forum said it's just a sort of word book - but it isn't. Because a single word can have several different shades of meaning, Amplified gives alternative renderings, AND GRADES THEM into rock solid, not rock solid, possible, and guesswork. What's more, it tells you clearly which is which!

The NET Bible just makes me want to laugh. It's got so many notes, you spend more time reading the notes than the text itself! Which is a nonsense really.

Might be good stuff, but it's really overkill, and the number of places where those notes can make a real difference are very few and far between.

It's like cracking a peanut with a sledgehammer.

 

[smaller]

KJV only is a classic case of the blind leading the crazy. It plays to a very strange mindset and its arguments are among the most worthless invented.

One thing seems to go hand in hand with preterism, and that is a seeming lack of respect for The Word.

I am not an 'only' KJV'er but most of the modern writes took waaay too much liberty in their translations in thousands of instances. The NIV is one of THEE worst violators.

There are so many changes in some of these translations they amount to nothing less than individual artist renderings under the license of very very loose paraphrasing, and I'm being polite. Some of it is unadulterated nonsense.

One of the simplest examples I'd give is the alternating use of 'ye' and 'you' in the same sentences by Jesus. There are numerous such deployments. There is an exacting SPIRITUAL reason these subtle terms were used in the original language and translated that way in the KJV but that exacting deployment is gone gone gone from almost every modern rewrite. In some examples these butcher jobs are quite incredibly outrages.

Yes, they are in fact butcher jobs.

One may as well just write their own Bible. And sects are doing that now almost everywhere to bolster and favor their individual sects pet doctrines.

It is pathetic.

s

 

[Hitch]

You're probably right.

But I do hate people knocking something that's not only good, but very great.

Are you knocking it, or just the 'only' bit?

KJV only is a classic case of the blind leading the crazy. It plays to a very strange mindset and its arguments are among the most worthless invented.


What do you think?

I use the KJV almost exclusively. I was fortunate in my first contact with this nonsense. Another poster claimed he could 'hear the hiss of the serpent' in my posts; and when a thrid party asked about it the explanation was that I had not used the KJV. At the time I didnt have access to an online version (before the turn of the century) neither did I own CD. I either copied by hand or more usually posted the reference points,then as now almost 100% KJV. The antagonist never bothered to even ask me.
Since then they have become even more shrill.

It is a cult and its usefulness is confined to giving a rallying point for folks who would be causing even more harm elsewhere.

 

[Hitch]

One thing seems to go hand in hand with preterism, and that is a seeming lack of respect for The Word.

I am not an 'only' KJV'er but most of the modern writes took waaay too much liberty in their translations in thousands of instances. The NIV is one of THEE worst violators.

There are so many changes in some of these translations they amount to nothing less than individual artist renderings under the license of very very loose paraphrasing, and I'm being polite. Some of it is unadulterated nonsense.

One of the simplest examples I'd give is the alternating use of 'ye' and 'you' in the same sentences by Jesus. There are numerous such deployments. There is an exacting SPIRITUAL reason these subtle terms were used in the original language and translated that way in the KJV but that exacting deployment is gone gone gone from almost every modern rewrite. In some examples these butcher jobs are quite incredibly outrages.

Yes, they are in fact butcher jobs.

One may as well just write their own Bible. And sects are doing that now almost everywhere to bolster and favor their individual sects pet doctrines.

It is pathetic.

s

A casual reader couldnt be blamed for thinking I had planted this.

 

[smaller]

A casual reader couldnt be blamed for thinking I had planted this.

With all that being said I was saved after reading The Living Bible. Up to that point I couldn't get past a quarter of a page in the KJV. So they are used regardless.

For deeper studies though I still prefer the KJV with online links to Hebrew/Aramaic word translations.