Christ's deity attacked in the American Standard Version (John 9:38)

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Olivencia, May 19, 2009.

  1. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him."

    The footnote reads, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator."

    Beware of this version.
     
  2. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is Jesus a creature? I wonder why they added such footnotes.
     
    #2 Eliyahu, May 19, 2009
    Last edited: May 19, 2009
  3. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is He a living being?
     
  4. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ is certainly a living being, but wouldn't a creature be something or someone who has been created? Christ was not created.

    What a strange footnote.
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
    John 9:38 AV 1873

    And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
    John 9:38 ASV

    And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him.
    John 9:38 NASB95

    He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
    John 9:38 NET

    He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
    John 9:38 ESV

    “I believe, Lord!” he said, and he worshiped Him.
    John 9:38 HCSB

    He said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped him.
    John 9:38 NRSV

    It's not the version, it's your notes you dislike.

    I don't see the note in my copy of the American Standard Version (1901).

    Rob
     
  6. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    It makes me wonder if the stylistic consultant for the footnotes was Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  7. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,935
    Likes Received:
    45
    This is a good verse to show the JW's that All should honor the Son in the same manner they honor the Father. Jesus accepted worship!
     
  8. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not the version, it's your notes you dislike.

    I don't see the note in my copy of the American Standard Version (1901).


    --> I don't like the note that exists in this version. I verified the comment concerning John 9:38 at Western Seminary Library in Portland Oregon.
     
  9. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yeah, watch out the 1901 ASV is in big time use today! Footnotes are interesting sometimes but that's about it
     
  10. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    It most probably is not in big time use today but one wonders how many people were effected (infected) by this blasphemous comment. The effects of which continue to this day.
     
  11. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Olivencia, I think you are overreacting. I do not believe anyone intended any attack on Christ's deity. If so they did a really lousy job of it.
     
  12. Tater77

    Tater77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its a linguistic note , not theological. The ASV was big on being very literal.
     
  13. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Olivencia, I think you are overreacting. I do not believe anyone intended any attack on Christ's deity. If so they did a really lousy job of it.

    --> To assert that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is indeed an attack on His deity.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Its a linguistic note , not theological. The ASV was big on being very literal.

    --> To assert that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is indeed a theological note.
     
  14. Tater77

    Tater77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    :BangHead: Think what you want to then. You wouldn't be the first to attack the ASV.
     
  15. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not advocating ASV, but let's be fair for the future reference. Otherwise anyone who look at this discussion may find this as an unilateral accusation in the absence of an advocator for it.

    I think the translators wanted to comment οn the original meaning of the word " Προσεκυνησεν" which means " Worship or Bow Down with reverence"

    Actually this word was used by LXX, in Genesis 23:7 when Abraham bowed down to the Hitites for the burial of Sarah.


    http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&b=Gen&c=23&v=1&x=54&y=13#conc/7

    Therefore in that case, the word itself meant the bowing down to a creature as a respect.

    I think this is not the only case where Prosekunsen ( Proskuneo) was used for the human being, and ASV translators knew this usage.

    The only thing lacking in that footnotes is that they had to mention " In this passage, it was done to the Messiah as his Savior and therefore it should mean to worship to the Creator" Otherwise, they should have deleted the footnotes.

    If we debate with JW, they would point out Proskuneo means the homage to human being too! JW will bring more evidences to support it!
    We can decide the usage, considering the full context.
     
    #15 Eliyahu, May 20, 2009
    Last edited: May 20, 2009
  16. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Well the translation is accurate...who cares about the note?

    Seriously, this is more about speaking the grammatical and semantical situation than being one to draw a serious theological conclusion.

    The context clearly demonstrates this isn't about Christ being an animal or such. If anything when reading this text it demonstrates that this is a moment where people recognized the reality of Christ being God and worshipped Him accordingly. It is a sweet moment.

    But hey, if you don't like the version and notes don't use it. I do, however, fail to see if this is a bad translation of the verse. :)
     
  17. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe because the blind man worshipped another man, Jesus, the note uses "creature." IOW, everyone around assumed Jesus was a man, yet he was being worshipped. Jesus is God but he was incarnated as man as well.

    That's just a guess. But I do not think the people who wrote the note are denying the deity of Christ. If they thought this, it would come out in other ways in the translation.
     
  18. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree, this is just another "old" argument that is used to attack a legitimate translation of the Bible.
     
  19. Tater77

    Tater77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing more than a "poorly" worded footnote that should have been a little more clear.
     
  20. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think what you want to then. You wouldn't be the first to attack the ASV.

    --> Well go ahead and keep hitting your head against the wall. Maybe it will knock some sense into it. You asserted that it wasn't a theological note. This is wrong. To declare that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is without question a theological note.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    I do, however, fail to see if this is a bad translation of the verse.

    --> I agree.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Marcia, sag38 and Tater77:

    --> Would you ever refer to Christ as a "creature"?
     
    #20 Olivencia, May 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...