The King James Bible

[NoNameMcgee]

what is this thread about?

that the KJV is a legitimate bible translated to english?

i agree

there are a few good translations in many languages

God did a fine job keepin His inspired written word in tact

 

[Locutus]

Yes, they want you to, just please tell Housekeeping so they can place another one in case they don't check.

Gideon's say they want people to take them, trouble is it's just a waste of time cos they are NIV.

"Gideons is a group of businessmen, who since 1899 have distributed Bibles throughout hotels, motels, schools, prisons, nursing homes and other places. I respect and admire such a noble undertaking. However, Satan has infiltrated their group.

Tragically, Gideons have strayed from the purity of the Scriptures by distributing the corrupt New International Version [NIV].

The NIV is extremely dangerous. In Philippians 2:6, the NIV says Jesus is not God."


BEWARE OF GIDEONS BIBLES!

​

 

[NoNameMcgee]

Gideon's say they want people to take them, trouble is it's just a waste of time cos they are NIV.

"Gideons is a group of businessmen, who since 1899 have distributed Bibles throughout hotels, motels, schools, prisons, nursing homes and other places. I respect and admire such a noble undertaking. However, Satan has infiltrated their group.

Tragically, Gideons have strayed from the purity of the Scriptures by distributing the corrupt New International Version [NIV].

The NIV is extremely dangerous. In Philippians 2:6, the NIV says Jesus is not God."


BEWARE OF GIDEONS BIBLES!

​

whoooa

for real?

thats messed up

i know someone who reads niv

i always stick to KJV
NASB

(go to strongs sometimes if need be)

 

[trofimus]

The NIV is extremely dangerous. In Philippians 2:6, the NIV says Jesus is not God."


BEWARE OF GIDEONS BIBLES!

I wonder why, because the deity of Christ is presented in NIV better than in the KJV.

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" NIV

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV


It seems obvious to me, that to be God in very nature is more than just in form. But who can understand the mind of KJV Only guys... Its different than in the KJV and therefore it must be wrong.

 

[Dino246]

James White is an apologist for modern Bible versions and an anti-KJV propagandist. He is definitely not a textual scholar and his writings have been debunked by others who are better equipped to be objective about this issue. It would appear that he has a financial stake in this matter, but that is second-hand information.

Hahahahahaha! What a load of cow chips! Get some integrity, man.

 

[posthuman]

I wonder why, because the deity of Christ is presented in NIV better than in the KJV.

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" NIV

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV


It seems obvious to me, that to be God in very nature is more than just in form. But who can understand the mind of KJV Only guys... Its different than in the KJV and therefore it must be wrong.

HELPS Word-studies
3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence.

 

[Locutus]

I wonder why, because the deity of Christ is presented in NIV better than in the KJV.

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" NIV

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV


It seems obvious to me, that to be God in very nature is more than just in form. But who can understand the mind of KJV Only guys... Its different than in the KJV and therefore it must be wrong.

This is typical of the misrepresentation that the KJV onlyists do, there is not one doctrine affected by newer translations.

 

[trofimus]

HELPS Word-studies
3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence.

So, both translations got it right, but NIV got its deeper meaning while KJV translated it more mechanically.

 

[Locutus]

KJV onlyist crashes into NIV, but lives on to fight another day:

 

[PeterJames]

My only comment to that would be, it should not be about what comes out doctrinally stronger or better, no matter which translation we're using.

The question becomes is 'in very nature God' or 'in the form of God' the better translation of the underlying Greek text.

Never on whether a certain manipulation of the text will yield greater points to a certain teaching. For the record, I'm a Trinitarian.

I wonder why, because the deity of Christ is presented in NIV better than in the KJV.

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" NIV

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV


It seems obvious to me, that to be God in very nature is more than just in form. But who can understand the mind of KJV Only guys... Its different than in the KJV and therefore it must be wrong.

 

[Musicus]

Gideon's say they want people to take them, trouble is it's just a waste of time cos they are NIV.

"Gideons is a group of businessmen, who since 1899 have distributed Bibles throughout hotels, motels, schools, prisons, nursing homes and other places. I respect and admire such a noble undertaking. However, Satan has infiltrated their group.

Tragically, Gideons have strayed from the purity of the Scriptures by distributing the corrupt New International Version [NIV].

The NIV is extremely dangerous. In Philippians 2:6, the NIV says Jesus is not God."


BEWARE OF GIDEONS BIBLES!

​

Says He's equal with God:

New International Version
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

I'm just starting to learn Greek, so I can't get into this the way I'd like to. Many other versions say ...being in the form of God...which could be misconstrued also, including K Jimmy, because they don't say ...being God... I new exactly what it meant the 1st time I read the NIV.

Gideons International doesn't distribute the NIV anyway, at least not in the USA. This is according to a friend of mine who works for them. They have distributed mainly the KJV, and now they offer the NKJV, sometimes called the Modern English Version, but you have to ask for that one.

 

[Musicus]

Gideons International doesn't distribute the NIV anyway, at least not in the USA. This is according to a friend of mine who works for them. They have distributed mainly the KJV, and now they offer the NKJV, sometimes called the Modern English Version, but you have to ask for that one.

I just checked with another friend who manages a bunch of hotels, and he is going to do some checking on the Gideon bible versions, because he says my other friend is wrong.

 

[trofimus]

My only comment to that would be, it should not be about what comes out doctrinally stronger or better, no matter which translation we're using.

The question becomes is 'in very nature God' or 'in the form of God' the better translation of the underlying Greek text.

Never on whether a certain manipulation of the text will yield greater points to a certain teaching. For the record, I'm a Trinitarian.

The point was, that some hysterical KJVO website wrote that NIV is against deity of Christ, in this verse.

The opposite is true, the deity of Christ is more evident in NIV than in KJV, here.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

whoooa

for real?

thats messed up

i know someone who reads niv

i always stick to KJV
NASB

(go to strongs sometimes if need be)

be careful of strongs, It is just basic. I think you are ok if you stay away from NLT and I am not fond of NIV, ESV, NASB and King Jimmy (new or old) are good versions.. But even with them sometimes you need to go to the greek or hebrew

 

[eternally-gratefull]

An intermediate greek english lexicon -

ΜΟΡΦΉ, ἡ, form, shape, Lat. forma, σοὶ δʼ ἐπὶ μὲν μορφὴ ἐπέων thou hast power to give shape to words, i.e. to give a colour of truth to lies, Od.; θεὸς μορφὴν ἔπεσι στέφει God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, Ib.
2. form, shape, figure, esp. like Lat. forma, a fine or beautiful form, Pind., Trag.
3. generally, form, fashion, appearance, Soph., Xen.
4. a form, kind, sort, Eur., Plat. Hence μορφήεις

 

[posthuman]

The point was, that some hysterical KJVO website wrote that NIV is against deity of Christ, in this verse.

The opposite is true, the deity of Christ is more evident in NIV than in KJV, here.

yes, it seems like the English word "form" ((being in the form of God)) doesn't really get across the meaning of the Greek "morphe" -- if that dictionary entry i posted is correct, that it means more than just being in the 'shape' of God ((as the English form implies)) but having an outward form specifically matching the inward reality. "being by very nature God" does read to me to be closer to the Greek, and leaves less room to argue that it's not expressing Jesus' divinity.

in English, one could have the 'form' of something in a deceptive way, the outside not matching the inside. having the 'form' of something doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality - you could say that if Jesus had the 'form' of God, that He wasn't really God, just appeared as such. but if He is by 'nature' God, then it is very hard to argue that His deity is something He just put on like a costume.

i agree, KJV here is less definitively expressing that Jesus is God than NIV -- that was a really dumb statement to say NIV denies His deity in that verse.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

whoooa

for real?

thats messed up

i know someone who reads niv

i always stick to KJV
NASB

(go to strongs sometimes if need be)

It most definitely is false information. Complete and utter rubbish. I've been using the NIV for 30 years. Some people just hear or see things somewhere once and run with it, repeating falsehood and spreading rumour without verifying.

Phil 2:6 ( NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
[a] or in the form of

And in case that isn't enough.

Col 1 (NIV)
The Supremacy of the Son of God

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


John 1 New International Version (NIV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

 

[PeterJames]

Philippians 2:6-11. We, however, cannot see essence and the point of the passage is that although He was in the form of God, He also took upon Himself a form of a servant and, while both are true - both cannot necessarily be seen until we get to "and was made in the likeness of men ..." [v.7]

Paul appears to be saying that in His humanity, He still did not believe it to be 'robbery' to be equal with God because He was also in the form of God.

Form also does not necessarily mean shape but can mean beauty and or its second defintion is "the essential nature of a thing as distinguished from its matter ..."

Now I'm no expert in Greek or Hebrew and perhaps you are an expert in Greek or Hebrew.

I'm *also not* a worshiper of the KJV; but do you mean to tell me that 50+ translators together couldn't figure out that "by very nature God" would be better than "form of God". That is 50+ experts in Greek, Latin, and some of them Hebrew? I'm sure this was a point of discussion amongst them, so I hesitate to claim the KJV is 'definitively' expressing, less, that Jesus is God. Even if BOTH OF US were experts in Greek and Hebrew, I'd still hesitate since we haven't personally pulled off a translation yet.

yes, it seems like the English word "form" ((being in the form of God)) doesn't really get across the meaning of the Greek "morphe" -- if that dictionary entry i posted is correct, that it means more than just being in the 'shape' of God ((as the English form implies)) but having an outward form specifically matching the inward reality. "being by very nature God" does read to me to be closer to the Greek, and leaves less room to argue that it's not expressing Jesus' divinity.

in English, one could have the 'form' of something in a deceptive way, the outside not matching the inside. having the 'form' of something doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality - you could say that if Jesus had the 'form' of God, that He wasn't really God, just appeared as such. but if He is by 'nature' God, then it is very hard to argue that His deity is something He just put on like a costume.

i agree, KJV here is less definitively expressing that Jesus is God than NIV -- that was a really dumb statement to say NIV denies His deity in that verse.

 

[trofimus]

It most definitely is false information. Complete and utter rubbish. I've been using the NIV for 30 years. Some people just hear or see things somewhere once and run with it, repeating falsehood and spreading rumour without verifying.

Phil 2:6 ( NIV)

[FONT=&]Who, being in very nature[a] God,[/FONT]
[FONT=&]did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
[/FONT] [FONT=&][a] or in the form of[/FONT] [FONT=&]

[/FONT][FONT=&]And in case that isn't enough.

[/FONT][FONT=&]Col 1 (NIV)
[/FONT][FONT=&]The Supremacy of the Son of God

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


[/FONT]John 1 New International Version (NIV)

[FONT=&]1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.[/FONT]

Or lets add:

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
J 1:18, NIV

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son [missing part about being God], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
J 1:18, KJV

---

Regarding deity of Christ, KJV proponents should be very careful, when attacking other versions, because it seems that the KJV is the weakest one regarding this.

 

[PeterJames]

Also my understanding with all translation work is the number of manuscripts and what they say along with how a word is used in it's Greek or Hebrew rendering *coupled* with context both literary and historical is what translators must struggle with. It's not cut and dry and the translator is not concerned with this doctrine or that doctrine; he's being concerned with how to be faithful to the manuscripts he believes are an accurate expression of the originals of the Word of God.