John 3:16 and Doctrinal Change

Talk about silliness! Those who believe in Him will not perish or be lost.

The phrase rendered "should not perish" gives a different connotation to today's readers.They may think ;"Should not;so maybe there's a possibility that they will?"Actually when read in context the antiquity of the KJV words will still be understood in context.But you are really straining at minuscule things in order to advance your cause.Don't you have anything more substantial?Is your chamber empty?

 

Nevertheless you are misfiring.Your point is so microscopic that I have failed to detect it.

You think the NIV has grievously erred when it says shall not perish.Simply they will not perish is the meaning.The meaning is not:ought not perish which is the equivalent to should not perish from your favorite version.

Move on to something with more of a bite to it.

 

There really are blanks in your barrel!

 

What evidence do you have that any English translation's every word was chosen by the Lord Himself?

Do not quote 2 Timothy 3:16-7 or other such passages, as those passages were written well over 1000 years before the first English translation of the whole Scriptures. Those passages refer to texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek from ancient times.

Without extra-biblical speculation, the words in the KJV and every English translation are just the words chosen by the translator(s). As I am wary of extra-biblical speculation, that is my view.

Also, the person raised a good point about the change in English usage in the last four centuries. The fact is, English of 1604-1611 is not the same as that of the mid-1900's and onward.

 

Sorry, but once again, you fail to distinguish between matters of fact and matters open to question.

The fact that English has changed since 1611 is an undisputed fact in linguistics and in the academic subject of the history of English.

There are words that in 1604-1611 carried different connotations than they do now. Insisting on otherwise will only make you look like an idiot.

 

Yet more attacks on the Word of God. How shameful.

 

Hold on here.

The English-reading church is but a portion of the church. There are portions of the church who are Spanish-reading, Portuguese-reading, German-reading, Italian-reading, French-reading -- and that is just the European languages.

To them, an English translation is not "the accepted Word of God for centuries in the Church." Most of them would insist that their translations of the Bible should be taken every bit as valid. The main exceptions are multi-lingual people who get duped into thinking God values the English-reading Christians more than everyone else. Otherwise, most foreign language readers would recognize any teaching that their translations are less valid as the bigotry it is.

Second, the church has been around for more than a few centuries. Try nearly 2000 years. The Greek New Testament has been around that long -- since the beginning decades of the church. When any translation differs relevantly from that ancient text, the ancient text should take precedence.

 

Nobody.

The KJV was not the accepted Word of God for centuries. As was pointed out there are many other languages, and even in English there have always been other good translations. Secondly, you have not pointed out a change. YOu simply pointed out where two translations use different words. You haven't shown that there is an actual difference, and you have not shown which one should be used by looking at what John actually wrote. I doubt that you can since you likely do not even know how to read what JOhn said. Most people who take dogmatic positions on issues like this can't read Greek. If they could, then they would recognize how silly some of these arguments sound.

You don't know why they changed it so to say that it was "for purposes of their own" is something you simply don't know.

No, I didn't call it shameful for you stand for the truth. You are not doing that. You are attacking the Word of God and planting doubts in people's minds about it. God didn't verbally inspire "shall" or "should." He verbally inspired apoletai, an aorist middle subjunctive, third person singular. Would you please tell us what that means to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about?

What do I have wrong? I didn't say you changed the Word of God. I said you attacked it. You apparently don't even read my words very closely, which makes it hard to have a conversation.

 

The difference between the KJV's "should" and the NIV's "shall" is simple. In the Greek, the clause " that whoever believes in him ..." is a final clause, indicating purpose, result, or content. In older English, a result/purpose clause always used the English subjunctive, "should" or "would." In modern English, the subjunctive mood is all but gone; we say "shall" or "will" or "does."

As long as I'm at it, there is a side of John 3:16 that very few English translations get right -- how to understand the word, "so." "God so loved the world" does not mean "love the world so much." The Greek adverb here, outws, followed by a final clause ("... that he ..."), means, "in the following way." In modern English, it's probably best translated, "This is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life."

m00tpoint the Lutheran Interloper