Jesus - Son or Servant?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Jan 30, 2005.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    In Lesson 7 of trying to teach the superiority and exclusivity of the KJV (whichever revision is correct), I was dumbfounded by Dr. Holland's condemnation of the "evil" in the NKJV. The very first "proof" was this passage:

    The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his SON Jesus; . . . (Acts 3:13 KJV)

    The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His SERVANT Jesus, . . . (NKJV. Also in Acts 3:26; 4:27; and 4:30)

    I thought, hey, the NKJV is supposed to be from the same Greek text as the KJV, so why the difference?

    Looked up the word (paidon, the accusative case of the noun pais). It means a child, boy/girl, servant, slave. And it is translated as such in the KJV! Mt 12:18 in the KJV translates this word as "Servant" referring to Jesus.

    So the NKJV is "evil" because it translates a Greek word (same word as Greek in KJV) DIFFERENTLY than the KJV did in this case, although the SAME as the KJV did in other instances of the same word.

    I am scratching my head. The NKJV will use some different English words than the KJV. Duh. But his first example is ludicrous.
     
  2. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^^

    Good point, Dr. Bob. Only if KJV-onlies would examine their 'literature' in the same manner as we do. :rolleyes: Not only that, they should examine the statements we make in our publications. I'm not so sure if the typical KJV-onlyist has ever read Dr. Carson's book or Dr. White's book on the KJV-only issue. Their condemnation of what they call 'evil' is disturbing at best; if they would only examine the 'evidence' thouroughly rather than blurt out statements that obviously had not been fully explored or examined. Otherwise, what they call 'evil' would be their own faulty evaluations about the NKJV or even their own presuppositions about the KJV-onlyism.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Kinda reminds me of the pascha = Easter thingy of Acts 12:4. This booboo has been evident since the 1600s, but it took the creationb of the KJVO myth for some to start inventing excuses for it.

    I thoroughly examined the Easter issue to see if it has any merit, and found none. The KJVO excuses range from the pseudo-scholarly to the ludicrous, same as they do for the Son-Servant issue. But that's all ANY of'em are...EXCUSES, not legitimate reasons.
     
  4. neopallium

    neopallium
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc.


    Dear Brother,

    I find nothing inconsistent with the wording of the KJV. It was never the intent of the translators to “transliterate” the bible. Although I am not thoroughly convinced that you’re intent was to criticize the KJV as such.

    Clearly, a lineage was being presented and therefore, "Son" (One's male child) glorifies Christ to that end.

    Although you do demonstrate a keen point with regard to this discussion, I am not convinced that it is representative of the scope of the bible version.

    When witnessing to the dear Jehovah’s Witnesses, I often find that they use that same interpretation of servant as a “proof” that Jesus was not the Son of God but a literal servant of God. For the young Christian who does not have the spiritual discernment for such matters, it could be a source of confusion, which the Devil is so ready to exploit. In case you haven’t notices, the JW’s are certainly winning converts despite the multitude of easy-to-read bible versions.

    They are always more than eager to see one of the newer versions. Why? In the matter of their doctrine, they agree.

    Which way would you rather have it rendered for those tender new Christians knowing that the wolf aka antichrist will be at their door eager to devour their fruits of labor?
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The Jehovah False Witness refuses to accept the fact that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man at the same time. Their bible in John 1:1 says The Word was *A* god.

    I hope you have some success witnessing to them. They've been "conditioned" to resist any Christian teachings. We really must rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to them through us, because OUR puny efforts aren't gonna reach any of them too often.

    The preface "To The Reader" in the AV 1611 tells us those translators weren't hidebound to their own work. Why should WE be?
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Not critizing the KJV at all, brothers. I just say that in one case they translate the IDENTICAL word as "Son" and another as "Servant".

    Then, when the NKJV translates it (in a passage where the KJV translators had chosen the word "Son") as "Servant", they jump up and down and claim the NKJV is in error.

    I am passionately AGAINST the KJVonly mindset that would attack the NKJV. That's all.
     
  7. WallyGator

    WallyGator
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Having been KJV-preferred most of my life, I am enjoying the NKJV and personally believe that the Holy Spirit has illuminated the Word to me using the NKJV as well as The KJV.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Greek word at Matthew 12:18 was translated "son" in the 1526 Tyndale's and
    "child" in the 1534 Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles. According to a consistent application of KJV-only accusations against the NKJV, does the KJV harm Christ's deity with its changing of this rendering to "servant" at Matthew 12:18?

    Dr. James D. Price has explained that the reason for the NKJV's choice of the rendering "servant" in the book of Acts is that the translators thought in this context that Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (unpublished paper FALSE WITNESS OF G. A RIPLINGER'S DEATH CERTIFICATE FOR THE NKJV, p. 25). In her tract that misrepresents the NKJV, Gail Riplinger had claimed that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" and "demotes Jesus Christ" at Acts 4:27 and 30 with its rendering "holy Servant Jesus."
     
  9. neopallium

    neopallium
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Brother(s),

    "According to a consistent application of KJV-only accusations against the NKJV, does the KJV harm Christ's deity with its changing of this rendering to "servant" at Matthew 12:18?"

    No, remember, in their own words, the KJV translators were not tied to a uniform rendering of words. Reference my first post.

    Matthew 12:18 in the KJV is a quote from the prophet Isaiah 42:1. That scripture/prophecy from Isaiah was fulfilled.

    Although I am new on this forum, I can't help but consider the great wonder that the Lord has bestowed upon our generations whereby we as free men can consider the Doctrine and convictions of our heart that we hold concerning our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

    In a time not-so-distant past, such disagreements may no more/less have met with one of us meeting our dearest redeemer.
     
  10. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still say that as a generation passes and the old die-hard KJVO's are gone, the NKJV will become the NEXT version of the KJV and there will still be KJVO's carrying their NKJV's.

    It would be interesting to actually see if this same thing happened when revisions of the KJV took place historically. My guess is that it did and it took the generation that held onto the old version to die off allowing the next or possibly third generation to eventually accept the new revision.
     
  11. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    neo: "When witnessing to the dear Jehovah’s Witnesses, I often find that they use that same interpretation of servant as a “proof” that Jesus was not the Son of God but a literal servant of God."

    When the JW's attempt that tactic with *me*, I immediately turn to the 46 *other* NT occurrences where "Son of God" appears, and ask them to explain *that* situation.

    Obviously, legitimate alternative translations of one occurrence do not apologetics make.
     
  12. Providential

    Providential
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    This is wrong Dr. Bob. You left out one important FACT. Matthew 12:18 is a quotation from a prophecy in Isaiah, where it says "Behold my Servant, whom I have chosen" The Hebrew says SERVANT, therefore the KJV translators had a slight hint how to render the word here--simply follow the leader! There was nothing to figure out here. They had the word picked for them

    But when we come to the Prophecy that "Out of Egypt I have called my Son", they followed the leader once again, being good, consistent translators.

    The verses in Acts have no justification for changing from child, to servant. It is simply ridiculous. The AV translators had infallable reasons to use servant in Matt 12:18. The MV committees had no good reason to use "servant" in Acts 4. Logos tells us:

    "Dr. James D. Price has explained that the reason for the NKJV's choice of the rendering "servant" in the book of Acts is that the translators thought in this context that Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD"

    That is no answer. If the above is true, those NKJV translators didn't know their Bible too well, or James Price is making this up. How so?

    Notice the prayer Peter prayed:

    4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven,
    and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
    4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
    4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
    4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the
    people of Israel, were gathered together,
    4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
    4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants , that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
    4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
    4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

    It is clear that peter was referrring to Psalms TWO. And what pray tell does Psalms Two say? KISS THE SON. Nothing here about the Messiah being a servant. And, do you think Peter prayed that mighty signs healings and wonders would be done in the name of his holy "servant" Jesus, in light of Psalms 2, and after they just referred to themselves as God's "servants", and David as God's servant??? I think not! They were clearly distinguishing between themselves in their relation to God, and Christ's relation to God! This is a blatant example of denigrating Christ. Peter did not put His Lord on his level. Men do this! Committees do this. The context is clear. Peter was referring to a prophecy about the Messiah where He is called the SON. End of story, game over.

    Now when all these facts are considered, it is clear that the arguments the KJV people use against the MV in the books of Acts ARE NOT answered by going to Matt 12:18. Ironically, this appeal actually explodes the lame alibis men try to give for the attacks on the Diety of Christ as found in Acts 4. This is plain for all to see. Brothers and sisters, stop trusting these men, they are duping you. These translators are either Bible-blockheads, or deliberatley making things up to justify their errors.
     
  13. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Dr. Bob you are wrong! It does not matter if the KJV translates the same Greek word as two different words! The KJV is exempt from the same methods KJVOist use to condemn other translations.

    Hast thou not understood KJVO dogma yet Dr. Bob? LOL

    Why is the KJV exempt from the same criticisms used to condemn the NKJV when the KJV does the same thing?
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Providential...

    Whose lead did the AV translators follow when they inserted "the image of" in Romans 11:5, a phrase not found in ANY KNOWN Greek ms containing this verse, nor found in the Hebrew of 1 Kings 19:18, which Paul is quoting?
     
  15. Providential

    Providential
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    David J, if you want to be taken seriously, rather than viewed as a hack who is here to simply trump his position to the death, I suggest you refute my reasons, or better yet, simply concede my pionts. They are solid.

    Roby:

    1- Your question has nothing to do with this issue.
    2- If I successfully refuted a complaint against the KJV, you should acknowledge this before moving to your question. Otherwise, it sure seems like no matter how many correct answers one gives, and how many of their errors are answered, they just reply with more accusatory questions against the KJV. I'm not playing that game. Surely you understand that? Aren't we all sincere here? Can we not acknowledge when a point is made from the other side that has merit?

    When we are harping our positions, and have long since passed from having a conviction under the control of the Spirit, then we have this conviction in the flesh, and we become unreasonable and unteachable.

    I have wasted many hours on forums with people who were like that. Not anymore.

    If you make a good point, I will tell you. If you correct an error I made, I will acknowledge it.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    That's a problem Providential because of self-prejudice and self-bias. Perhaps if somewhere in those two sentences you said "in my opinion you make a good point" then you might be correct (IMO [​IMG] ).

    HankD
     
  17. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does that then mean, my friend, that you would also acknowledge the Holy Spirit as equating "God" with the "wicked" in Job 24? :mad:

    Somethings are amiss in the nKJV.
     
  18. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just from the logical point; don't certain Greek words carry different conotations than the "dogmatic" approach to a singular definition?I have heard it argued that the Greek is precise in it's defintion, BUT, that nohow,nowhere, in ANY form tells us how so many Greek words carry alternative meanings much like the English we speak today.

    Buit then, the KJB does emphatically, and very precisely, render what the reader NEEDS to understand, and that according to context, something the new versionists truly hope anyone doesn't understand. (Just so they can sell more of their "bibles"?)

    No, just so (what they presume), more can understand what the Lord wants them too, but then, it would seem, since the "Bible is more readily understood", there wouldn't be so many turning away from the things of God, even to the point of accusing (attribute of satan) those who hold dear the KJB as having driven many away, but then that would be surmised as ludicrous, considering many are saved and don't know any difference, but then the Lord have His way, they learn,better, Lord willing.

    So, in earnest, whether "Dreary" likes it or not, he has done the KJB a great service, by allowing the reader to see the precise and correct rendering of the Greek noun in context, explaing the Truth according to Scripture. Hence showing how the Greek DOES compliment the accuracy of the KJB translators, AGAIN!

    The only real mistake he made was attempting to "prove" something as illogical or amiss, by revealing the Truth: i.e., that the nKJV is slighted in it's reading by using a limited view of the word as defined ONLY as Servant, when all the while, this is God's Son that is glorified, fitting the harmony of context in the KJB that the Son is, and the Servant is not, glorified, though speaking of the same, the Son became the Servant, as in the Son of God became the man as in Emmanuel, meaning God with us.
    :D
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does that then mean, my friend, that you would also acknowledge the Holy Spirit as equating "God" with the "wicked" in Job 24? :mad:

    Somethings are amiss in the nKJV.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Please be more specific. I didn't see it.
     
  20. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Job 24:21 He evil entreateth the barren that beareth not: and doeth not good to the widow.


    Job 24:22 He draweth also the mighty with his power: he riseth up, and no man is sure of life.


    Wouldn't this be in a direct contradiction to the Attributes of God? Yes, defintitely.

    And doesn't the nKJV read "God draws the mighty..."?

    Does God really leave any man not "sure of life"?

    I thought He came to give life, and that more abundantly, so isn't that then a contradiction in the nKJV? Certainly. And it also gives the reader the impression God is a tyrant. Just not so!!

    You can't argue that the Hebrew has reference to the pronoun being God, it doesn't, it only gives the meaning that the pronoun is male in gender, so that does mean that the nKJV is WRONG. ( at least in this example)

    Besides, the entirity of the chapter is giving the reader the character of the evil and wicked.

    And on top of that, the conjunction "also" has the previous verse attached to the action of the latter, so would YOU equate God evil entreating the barren and not good to widows, when expressly given in our New Testament how the church is to CARE for widows?

    Me thinkest NOT!
     

Share This Page

Loading...