Does the reading of the nKJV in 1 Cor 12:3 change the diety of Jesus?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Ed Edwards, Jun 21, 2006.

?

Does the reading of the nKJV in 1 Cor 12:3 change the

  1. Yes, 'no the' denies the diety of Chirst

    4 vote(s)
    14.8%
  2. No, both the KJV and nKJV mean the same

    21 vote(s)
    77.8%
  3. Don't know, don't care, etc.

    2 vote(s)
    7.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1Co 12:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
    Wherefore I giue you to vnderstand, that no man speaking
    by the spirit of God, calleth Iesus accursed:
    and that no man can say that Iesus is the Lord,
    but by the holy Ghost.

    The New King James Version
    1 Corinthians 12:3 (nKJV = The New King James Version,
    or nKJV = New King James Version):

    Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking
    by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed,
    and no one can say that Jesus is Lord
    except by the Holy Spirit.

    Does the reading of the nKJV in 1 Cor 12:3 change the
    diety of Jesus?

    This statement just isn't true. This word change does NOT
    deny the diety of Christ. People who want to deny the diety of
    Christ can do so (and historically did) right from the KJV.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, since there's no definite article in the Greek...
     
  4. Friend of God

    Friend of God
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. I don't think the NKJV makes any change, or denies in any way Christ's deity. To me, it clarifies the verse by using modern, easy-to-understand language.
     
    #4 Friend of God, Jun 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2006
  5. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, what is the difference between "the Lord" and "Lord" on 1 Cor 12:3?
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1Co 12:3 (KJV1769 with Strong's numbers):
    Wherefore1352 I give you to understand,1107, 5213 that3754
    no man3762 speaking2980 by1722 the Spirit4151 of God2316
    calleth3004 Jesus2424 accursed:331
    and2532 that no man3762 can1410 say2036
    that Jesus2424 is the Lord,2962 but1508 by1722
    the Holy40 Ghost.4151

    G2962
    κύριος
    kurios
    koo'-ree-os
    From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority,
    that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr.
    (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.


    'is the Lord' and 'is Lord' are two different ways to
    translate 'kurios'. Both ways have the same meaning.
    Both are ligitimate translations.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes, so 'the Lord' and 'Lord' are each litigimate ways to
    translate the Greek term. The two presentations are equal
    in varacity and honor.
     
  8. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it does!

    Jesus is THE LORD! If I took a simple word out of a main ingredient of mom's apple pie and instead of pie I used dye the it would be BLUBERRY! Instead of Cinnamon! The same with the NKJV by taking out THE it TAKES AWAY And thats what the ENEMY wants!:smilewinkgrin:
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The I gues william that this verse from the KJV denies His kingship and deity since it does not use "the"?

    Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

    The answer to the poll is obvious, there is no difference in meaning
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, this statement doesn't explain what the difference
    (if any) might be??? :smilewinkgrin:
     
  11. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question is poorly posed. I voted my best choice (yes). However, I would have said that the change obscures rather than denies.

    To my eye "the Lord" and "Lord" do not mean the same thing. When I read "Jesus is the Lord" I think Jesus = Jehovah. On the other hand, when I read "Jesus is Lord" I think Jesus = ruler (or sovereign or king, etc). "

    I doubt that the casual reader will note the difference between "Lord" and "lord." Please also consider that "lord" can have a different meaning to a British (versus American) reader as it is a still fairly common title for nobility.

    I think the KJV translators were making reference to their use of the term "The LORD" in the OT. I believe that usage comes from the tradition of the Jews to say Adonai (Heb.- Lord) rather than pronounce God's Holy name (YHWH). Adonai becomes kurios (Gk.- Lord) in the LXX. And then kurios becomes "The LORD" in the english OT.

    Don't you think that a translator should consider the immediate and general context rather than being slavishly literal? Why do you think the correct translation is not "Jesus is lord" (small L)?

    I have on my asbestos suit so FLAME AWAY!

    A.F.
     
  12. Phil310

    Phil310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the definate article "the" is not in the Greek, then the KJV translators supplied the word for clarity with it in intalics. However, the NKJV did nothing wrong by leaving the word out because it is not in the Greek and can be understood either way. So the NKJV could not have left out what was never really there in the first place since the Greek preceded the KJV.

    Just my thoughts.:thumbs:

    Phil310
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its interesting that you don't even take into consideration what the Greek says--does your English translation correct the Greek Manuscripts?
     
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    This can be a minor matter of accuracy, not the matter of doctrinal issues with Deity of Jesus.
     
    #14 Eliyahu, Jun 22, 2006
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2006
  15. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    To me, "The Lord" almost makes it sound as a title only, while "Lord" makes it sound more like a position. One day, everyone will proclaim him to be "the Lord", but right now, you can make him "Lord" in your life.

    So, I would say that both can be correct as well.
     
  16. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course

    But the translation into English was perfected when they wrote "THE LORD" no need to change the finished product!:type: I mean Greek isnt perfect, but only God perfected the Vulgar languages into what he wanted us to Know thru them!
     
    #16 william s. correa, Jun 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2006
  17. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes

    All I am saying is that a simple change in one word throws a spin on what is truth and what is not! A saved person will overlook it if a Aouthority figure teaches out of the nkjv but will eventually realize that it is NOT the SAME! On the other hand a Lost person may misunderstand the verse and treat Jesus the Son Of the Living God no diffrent than a common King Lear or Solomon! When in Deed "JESUS IS THE LORD GOD IN THE FLESH:thumbs: ".
     
  18. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Billy Correa,

    You claim that you're not a "KJVOnlyite" but you spew thier same rhetoric. What you need to understand is NO major or even MINOR Christian Doctrine is based on ONE WORD from ONE VERSE in the Bible. The Diety of Christ is based on hundreds and hundreds of verses, not whether it says Lord, the Lord or simply LORD in ONE verse. Get serious will ya?

    It's like in the Book of Daniel where it says Daniel was thrown in the "den of lions" (KJV). But other translations call it a "lions den". The KLVOnlyites like to claim that a "lions den" doesn't mean there are lions in it, but a "den of lions" has lions in it, so when it says a "lions den" it is taking away from the truth of the story. No it doesn't, the story of Daniel in the "lions den" or "den of lions" is told through many verses, not just ONE. When you read the ENTIRE story from ALL English translations it is VERY CLEAR that Daniel was thrown into a den with lions in it, doesn't matter if you call it a "den of lions" or a "lions den" because there definately were lions in there!!!

    The great truths of the Bible and our historic doctrines of the faith, Billy, are based on many many verses and pasages in the Bible, not from a single word from a single verse.

    Billy, if God always has had a perfect innerent word preserved since it was completed, where was it in 1610 for the English speaking people? If there was one in 1610 , why did we need a "new" in in 1611 if we already had it and if we didn't have one then what was it that we did have in 1610??

    The KJV is a wonderful TRANSLATION from the best available manuscripts at that time, but in the last 400 years THOUSANDS of additional manuscripts have been found and you know what, NO major or minor doctrine has been effected by these discoveries. They have however added clarity to some verses and passages and frankly the English language has moved on from the Queens English of 400 years ago, especally modern AMERICAN English.

    If a Christian prefers the KJV or the NKJV, the 1995 NASB or the ESV or the HCSB or some other good English translation, they are still reading and studying GOD's PERFECT and COMPLETE WORD!!!
     
  19. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't be taking away from the word of God! English translations are all evil! Everyone must learn to read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek! All these modern versions after the 1st century don't convey the true meanings from God!

    This is the kind of rhetoric that is thrown out by Correa and other KJVO's, just applied to older "versions" than the one they [attack on posters deleted]
     
    #19 Hope of Glory, Jun 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2006
  20. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said Hope of Glory......wonder what Billy has to say?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...