Jesus or God?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Marcia, Mar 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    On a closed thread, this was posted by AJ and I didn't get to respond before the thread was closed. I hope there is no name calling here, or the thread will get shut down (as happened on the other thread).

    No, they don't. The reason this bothers me is because it's a false accusation.

    What you are seeing makes you think this, but this could only be if someone was translating one version from another and changing it.

    They are not doing this. They are translating from Hebrew and Greek.

    The manuscripts used for the KJV are a later set of manuscripts but discovered earlier. The ms for most MVs were discovered later (after the KJV was translated) but are earlier manuscripts.

    IOW, there are 2 sets of manuscripts.

    Also, sometimes it is not clear in the Greek whether the word is referring to Jesus or God because it is not specified in the passage.

    AJ, please give a couple of examples and let us see how we can iron this out in a reasonable way. I'm sure some more learned on this can add to this. Since you made this accusation, give us a passage as it is in the KJV and in a MV where you see God used instead of Jesus.
     
  2. ajg1959

    ajg1959
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will try to get time to respond to you in a PM. but I am finished discussing bible translations on the board.

    AJ
     
  3. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please don't PM me. I would like this discussion in an open forum so everyone can see. You don't have to participate.

    There are reasons that some passages in some versions may use "Jesus" while others used "God," but it's not because anyone "replaced" 'Jesus' with 'God.' I am aware of the differences.

    If you go on thinking this way without hearing the facts, you are doing a disservice to fellow believers.
     
  4. ajg1959

    ajg1959
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0

    I have heard all of the intellectual arguments to defend MVs, and I dont believe them.

    MV defenders deny that KJV was inspired by God because of the shady charaters involved in translating it. I believe that sometimes God uses shady characters to bid His will.

    So, most people on this board and I will never agree about the core issue of what is inspired and what is just a man-made version to generate book sales, so there is no need to discuss it any further. The question of specific verses is moot since i believe the whole translation to be fabricated.

    The last time I discussed this on the board I was belittled and ridiculed, so this is my last post on the subject. In fact I dont even plan to read the posts on this thread any further.

    PS....dont be upset with me cause I respect you greatly for the work you are doing educating folks about the New Age movement/occults.

    AJ
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    No translation is inspired! Only God's word is inspired.

    Sorry you feel this way. I assume you think when I read the NASB or NLT or NIV, I'm not reading the Bible. But of course, I am.

    I had to look into this as a new believer, AJ, because I heard the same things. But they proved to be invalid.

    You were the one who brought this up on the other thread, so it seems somewhat distasteful to back out of it. When you assert something here, you should be willing to defend and discuss it.
     
  6. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus is God. Even the TNIV makes this abundantly clear in its rendering of Romans 9:4:

     
  7. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was just interesting that you made that comment.
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    No false accusation! I agree with AJ’s quotation. The Gnostics replaced “Jesus” with “God” during they produced their manuscripts in around 300 AD. This is where modern versions were derived. MV translators followed Gnostics’ steps.

     
  9. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    WRONG! Where do you get malarkey such as this, Askjo? Modern Bible translations are normally based on manuscripts older and therefore more reliable than the later manuscripts on which the KJVs are based. Sorry to burst your bubble!

    BTW, Askjo, just because you agree with something doesn't mean it's true. You agree with the myth that the KJVs are the only true word of God in English. Your agreement does absolutely nothing to make the myth turn miraculously into truth.
     
    #9 Keith M, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2009
  10. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Proof of that? Or a retraction?
     
  11. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    AJ;

    I tend to not post in such threads for the very same reasons that you have put forth here. Be strong brother and blessed.

    Mel
     
  12. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Older texts are closer in time to the original autographs. Therefore, as time went on and more and more copies and copies of copies were made, the newer texts had more errors and insertions than the older texts.

    Do YOU have proof this is incorrect, Baptist4life? If you have concrete proof the older manuscripts are less reliable than the newer manuscripts then I'll gladly retract my statement. Until concrete proof is offered that older manuscripts are less reliable than newer manuscripts, there is nothing to retract.
     
    #12 Keith M, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2009
  13. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    You CANNOT make a statement like ............"Modern Bible translations are normally based on manuscripts older and therefore more reliable than the later manuscripts on which the KJVs are based"...................and then say because I can't prove it's not true you see no need to retract it? :BangHead: You made the statement. You have NO PROOF that it's true, but you want me to prove that it isn't? Are you catholic? That's the argument they use!



    I believe Moses rode a flying donkey. Since YOU can't prove this is wrong, I see no reason to retract it!


    Your "logic" is ridiculous.
     
    #13 Baptist4life, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2009
  14. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    My logic is no more ridiculous than yours, Baptist4life. Tell you what - you believe what you want to belive about the reliability of NT manuscripts and I'll believe what I believe. You're the one who asked for proof of something but yet you're unwilling to offer any form of proof that I'm wrong. I offered a common-sense reason for why I believe what I believe and all you want to do is ridicule me. That's not at all Christ-like, Baptist4life!

    :tonofbricks:

    Believing the older manuscripts are more reliable than the later manuscripts that make up the TR is only common sense, Baptist4life. Believing the later manuscripts are more reliable after all the changes that took place over time is ridiculous.

    BTW, Baptist4life, I'm not going to ridicule you if you want to believe Moses rode a flying donkey. But there's absolutely no scriptural support for this theory of yours, just like there's absolutely no scriptural support for the KJVO position.

    Who put poo-poo in your Wheaties this morning, Baptist4life?
     
  15. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, but the number that this preposterous statement would describe is microscopic.

    Most (if not all) of us here defend all faithful translations...the KJV, NAS, NIV, et al...as God's word. To say we "deny inspiration" is absolutely preposterous.
     
  16. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keith M, I'm not going to ridicule you if you want to believe older manuscripts are more correct just because they are older, but there's absolutely no scriptural support for this theory of yours.


    YOU made the statement, and it seems YOU are getting upset because I asked YOU to prove it, which YOU cannot!
     
  17. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    You made that statement. You have NO PROOF that it is true. I asked you for proof. I'll ask again, either PROVE that statement is true or site it as "just my opinion". Thank you.
     
  18. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sometimes I think some people believe that the KJV came from just one Greek manuscript, and every word was translated from that and has been kept intact only in english form. That is simply not the case, if we look at Erasmus's work he used no more than five Greek manuscripts, not one of those containing the entire Greek testament. Of those no two agreed perfectly in wording so he, just as many have since him have had to do was use textual criticism and choose which wording he thought best represented the original. He had no manuscript of Revelation, so he borrowed one from a friend, but it was missing the last sheet entirely, so he translated the last verses from Latin back into Greek himself in order to complete the New Testament. I am not in any way taking anything away from his work, it was a great work and a true blessing to the world, especially considering the limited amount of manuscripts he had to work with compared to what we have today. He published the Greek New testament in 1516.

    Later on Robert Estienne built on this work by printing a Greek NT that used about fifteen manuscripts about three times as many as Erasmus had available to him. Estienne's third edition was important because it also used footnotes enabling the reader to see different variation from the one chosen in the text, and reasoning behind that choice. He also added the breaks in the verses that is still used today.

    Theodore Baza published nine editions of the Greek NT between 1565 and 1604.

    First Edition of the KJV of 1611

    Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir published what is known as the Textus Receptus in 1633.

    Textual criticism has been used from our first Greek NT to our most current ones. There is no one single complete "copy" that led to the publishing of the KJV, and everything since then is just a pick and choose on a whim. On the contrary modern versions used Textual criticism the same as those scholars before them, the difference is that they have many more, and much older dated manuscripts to base their decisions on.
     
  19. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    370
    There's also absolutely no Scriptural support for any particular manuscript to be more correct - nor is there Scriptural support for the KJV to be the only inspired Word of God for the English speaking peoples.
     
  20. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is absolutely untrue. I was a follower of New Age and Eastern beliefs for close to 20 years. I also lecture publicly on this across the U.S. and on radio. The New Age and Eastern religions are very Gnostic, and for sure I would see Gnosticism in my Bible if it were there.

    Please give a passage where you think the MVs replaced Jesus with "God."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...