King James vs niv
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yep, I sure do. I read, study, and believe the King James Holy Bible. It is God's pure and infallible word.
And that verse of Scripture is doctrinally in the Old Testament.
And here is proof of that:
[SUP]35 [/SUP]But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
[SUP]36 [/SUP]Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
[SUP]37 [/SUP]And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
[SUP]38 [/SUP]But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. - 1 Corinthians 15:35-38 (KJV)
Now let me ask you Praus, was Paul disobeying the Bible when he said what he first said in 1 Corinthians 15:36?
I thought you were going to offer proof, instead you take different words in the Greek and decide that they're the same--they're not.
μωρε is not the same word as αφρον
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 5:22 εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτου εικη ενοχος εσται τη κρισει ος δ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτου ρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω ος δ αν ειπη μωρε ενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος (TR1894)
ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 15:36 αφρον συ ο σπειρεις ου ζωοποιειται εαν μη αποθανη (TR1894)
μωρε is not the same word as αφρον
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 5:22 εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτου εικη ενοχος εσται τη κρισει ος δ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτου ρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω ος δ αν ειπη μωρε ενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος (TR1894)
ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 15:36 αφρον συ ο σπειρεις ου ζωοποιειται εαν μη αποθανη (TR1894)
I did offer proof. Paul was dispensational.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15 (King James Bible)
The Gospels up until the crucifixion are doctrinally in the Old Testament.
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. - Hebrews 9:14-18 (King James Bible)
Here is more proof that the Gospels up until the crucifixion are doctrinally in the Old Testament.
3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. - Matthew 8:3-4 (King James Bible)
J
Dispensationalism is a lie. Not even the authors of the KJV believed that rubbish.
Paul used the KJV just like Jesus used the KJV, they didn't have Scofield Reference Bibles or Darby to listen to on audio casettes. Besides, the Scofield Reference Bible isn't the KJV, and it has Dispensationalism which is added like hoe the NIV adds, and Dispensationalism subtracts the Gospel just how the NIV subtracts the Gospel.
Put down the dispensationalism.
Paul used the KJV just like Jesus used the KJV, they didn't have Scofield Reference Bibles or Darby to listen to on audio casettes. Besides, the Scofield Reference Bible isn't the KJV, and it has Dispensationalism which is added like hoe the NIV adds, and Dispensationalism subtracts the Gospel just how the NIV subtracts the Gospel.
Put down the dispensationalism.
Last edited:
G
You probably aren’t even aware of all the “cans” you’ve really opened here. There are just so many things that I would like to address, but in order for me to do so that would require a lot more devotion than what I’m currently willing to put towards such an inane argument. As indicated in my previous post, I am going to respond to this, but I'll be breaking it down a bit by section so that people can read the portions they would like.
G
At this juncture I question if this individual has ever dealt with a Jehovah’s Witness.
Speaking from the countless experiences I’ve had while encountering JW’s (and I tend to deal with these folks on a day-to-day basis) I know of no better advice than this: Abandon the KJV and adopt a translation such as the ESV or NET, where the Deity of Christ is actually a whole lot more evident.
As seen here on the forums, when attempting to defend the Deity of Christ many tend to offer up passages where Divine titles are attributed to Christ, but in the process overlook the remaining (and quite substantial) evidence, such as,
Unfortunately, KJV-Only advocates do not have this kind of luxury, rather, when defending this essential they are extremely limited to the passages they can reference. While they may have the ability to utilize some of the arguments listed above, they are forced to utilize highly speculative passages (i.e., 1 Timothy 3.16, 1 John 3.16, Revelation 1.11) that refer to Christ as God in some way in order to advance their position, rather than utilize those we can be absolutely certain of (2 Peter 1.1, Titus 2.13, John 1.18). While there are a number of Septuagint-YHWH texts that are applied to Christ in the KJV, there are even more at our disposal when utilizing translations that correspond to the Nestle-Aland Greek NT or the CNTTS Critical Apparatus (ESV, NET, NASB). And so these translations attest to Christ’s deity more frequently, and in a broader number of ways.
Speaking from the countless experiences I’ve had while encountering JW’s (and I tend to deal with these folks on a day-to-day basis) I know of no better advice than this: Abandon the KJV and adopt a translation such as the ESV or NET, where the Deity of Christ is actually a whole lot more evident.
As seen here on the forums, when attempting to defend the Deity of Christ many tend to offer up passages where Divine titles are attributed to Christ, but in the process overlook the remaining (and quite substantial) evidence, such as,
- Those passages that discuss Christ’s pneumatological relation to the Holy Spirit (Acts 16.1-7), as well as the relationship between Jesus and Christians in correspondence to YHWH’s relation to the people of Israel.
- References where the NT authors apply Septuagint-YHWH texts to Jesus (Hebrews 1.10-12 [Psalm 102.25 LXX]; 1 Peter 2.3 [Psalm 33.9 LXX]; 1 Peter 3.14-15 [Isaiah 8.12-13 LXX]; Romans 10.9-13 [Joel 2.32]; Philippians 2.10 [Isaiah 45.23]).
- Christ’s ontological equality with the Father (John 1.1c, Hebrews 1.3, Colossians 2.9, Philippians 2.6).
- Various forms of worship given to Christ through doxologies (2 Peter 3.18), hymns (Philippians 2), prayer (John 14.14, “If you ask Me… I will do it”)
Unfortunately, KJV-Only advocates do not have this kind of luxury, rather, when defending this essential they are extremely limited to the passages they can reference. While they may have the ability to utilize some of the arguments listed above, they are forced to utilize highly speculative passages (i.e., 1 Timothy 3.16, 1 John 3.16, Revelation 1.11) that refer to Christ as God in some way in order to advance their position, rather than utilize those we can be absolutely certain of (2 Peter 1.1, Titus 2.13, John 1.18). While there are a number of Septuagint-YHWH texts that are applied to Christ in the KJV, there are even more at our disposal when utilizing translations that correspond to the Nestle-Aland Greek NT or the CNTTS Critical Apparatus (ESV, NET, NASB). And so these translations attest to Christ’s deity more frequently, and in a broader number of ways.
G
It’s really quite odd that you would even suggest that there is some kind of correspondence between the two translations based upon the underlying apparatus’ used (this alone is fallacious). You argue that the reason the translation differs from one (KJV, “Godhead”) compared to the other (NIV, “Deity”) is because the verbiage in each of the corresponding Greek apparatus’ differ, and thus, you conclude that the NIV is reflective of a corrupt text. However, the issue here is not a textual issue at all. One cannot even begin to argue that the NIV’s rendition of Colossians 2.9 is reflective of a “corrupt text” without also suggesting that the KJV is reflective of a corrupt text, and the reason for this is really quite simple: The very the same Greek term from which “Godhead” (KJV) is translated is also the very same term from which the NIV translates “Deity.” Here, the Greek NT of the KJV (1550 Stephanus Greek NT) reads precisely the same, word-for-word, as the Greek NT of the NIV (NIV Greek NT).
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς – 1550 Stephanus Greek NT
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς – NIV Greek NT
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς – NIV Greek NT
G
John 1.18 in no way refers to two Gods any more than does John 1.1.
Given John 1.1 where, both, the Father and the Son are individually referred to as God (“and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”), it simply astounds me that you would suggest John 1.18 cannot also refer to both as God without there being “two Gods.” To play devil’s advocate, I suppose that since the Father is referred to as God in passages throughout the King James NT then obviously Christ cannot also be referred to as God (including 1 Timothy 3.16, and 1 John 3.16) without there being “two Gods.” That is, “unless I forgot how to count.” The argument in itself is complete rubbish.
The reason the NIV reads the way it does is because the primary difficulty in understanding John 1.18 is determining whether μονογενὴς functions as a noun or an adjective in this verse.
Just four verse earlier in John 1.14, μονογενὴς functions as a substantive ("only One," "One and Only"), whereas, in other passages such as John 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9, it functions as an adjective modifying the noun (υἱός, “Son”). On the surface it seems that John 1.18 is most similar to the adjectival usage (John 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9), with the word θεός (“God”) taking the place of υἱός (“Son”). However, in these three clear adjectival uses of μονογενὴς, John uses the article (ὁ μονογενὴς). However, in the substantival use in John 1.14, he does not (nor does he do so in John 1.18).
And it is due to the lack of the article that translations such as the NIV have taken μονογενὴς θεός to function as two substantives in apposition, i.e., "the only One, God,” or “the only One, who is God.”
A couple examples of apposition include,
“Abraham, the believer" (Galatians 3.9)
“did not spare the ancient world, but preserved an eighth, Noah, a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2.5)
“did not spare the ancient world, but preserved an eighth, Noah, a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2.5)
Had the apostle wished to use μονογενὴς unambiguously as an adjective, he could have written ὁ θεός ὁ μονογενὴς; or he could have even made the adjectival force far more likely by writing ὁ μονογενὴς θεός.
In his written work, Contra Celsum Book II.71 (refer to Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum; Paul Koetschau, Origenes Werke; and/or M. Marcovich, Origenes Contra Celsum libri VIII), Origen cites John 1.18 in full to refer to Christ as,
μονογενής γε ὢν θεός ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο
However, notice here that Origen utilizes a gloss which helps identify nouns in apposition (ὢν = being, who is, who being). He literally states here,
"...the One and Only, who being (ὢν) God; the One who is in the bosom of the Father; that One has made Him known."
Additionally, the Coptic scribes who brought us the Sahidic New Testament understood John 1.18 in a similar way. In John 1.18, the Copts took μονογενὴς to function as a substantive (which they translate as, "the only Son"), just as they did in 1.14, a passage where υἱός is nowhere present, and where there is no possibility of textual variance, or even a conflated text.
Thus, Coptic scribes render John 1.18 in a similar way as the NIV, and theNRSV: "God, the only Son"
K
New Idiot Version. Cannot people understand the fact, that you cannot have an interpretation of the bibkle that does not change the meaning of the text or that is plagiarism. You cannot just change the thusith and death or corn to grain and get a copy rite. At least in the U.S. You have to change the meaning and flow of the text Why would some one do this, easy, money.
The bible is the most sold book in the world so when corporate minds meet they say hmmm, if we could change the bible and put it in a more modern tongue we could make millions and guess what they were right. Because you bought it.
The bible is the most sold book in the world so when corporate minds meet they say hmmm, if we could change the bible and put it in a more modern tongue we could make millions and guess what they were right. Because you bought it.
G
Sir, you're out of tune with everything said up to this point. The NIV is not an update to the KJV, it's based off entirely different Greek NT Critical Apparatus, and so you can expect it to read differently.
Of course, even with that said, language does change over time, and those who brought us the New King James will attest to that. The TR was the sole apparatus used in the translation of the NKJV, but since language is always changing, words do not even carry with them the same meanings as they did hundreds of years ago, "dawg."
Of course, even with that said, language does change over time, and those who brought us the New King James will attest to that. The TR was the sole apparatus used in the translation of the NKJV, but since language is always changing, words do not even carry with them the same meanings as they did hundreds of years ago, "dawg."
G
Because it's their own translation. What is your point? The NIV is a dynamic equivalence, it's meant to help shed light on passages that may seem difficult to understand. It's suitable for everyone. They didn't change the KJV, they translated from an apparatus not even associated with the KJV, and in doing so have tried to make it understandable to all.