Just Something I Read

Correct, Jesus probably thought about it and changed His mind (for whatever reason).

Does that mean as a man He had limitations?

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
​

Mark 13

31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

I agree with Tater, why not let Him have the human quality of changing His mind?

HankD​

 

Probably? The text does not imply in any way that Jesus changed His mind. You have to read that into it. Where in all of the NT did Jesus ever change His mind? He knew what He had come for and everything He said or did was for that purpose.

This was when Jesus was a child. By the time He started His ministry, He was fully grown and had all the wisdom of God. (Read Colossians)

Any limitations Jesus may have had were of His own doing. He chose to limit Himself. He could have called down legions of angels to deliver Him from the cross, but He chose to obey the Father.

Because the Bible does not say that.​

 

Believe what you want. I agree with Tater.

HankD

 

Come on B4Life Can you not find a fresh and viable attack on MV's rather than this old, tiresome, attack from the KJVO playbook?

 

Whew! Don't get B4L all riled up. He'll start to post with a bunch of red letters and plenty of exclamation marks. Afterall, he's not KJVO as he always insists.

Sure, he claims all the various modern versions have thrown people into confusion. And yes, he says there can only be one correct version. Yeah, he cites KJVO sources a lot. But don't you ever call him KJVO. How many times must he point that very obvious fact out to the rest of us before we begin to understand?

 

Hi Amy,

After going over this thread again, my answer looks kind of curt.

I'm sorry, I had to get ready for church.

I was going to mention the following passage for your perusal:

KJV Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

ASV Genesis 6:6 And itrepented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

NIV Genesis 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.​

NAS Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.​

RSV Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.​

NKJ Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.​

In this passage we have the Triune God expressing sorrow (and a change of mind by implication) that He had created man and that sorrow and grief was felt before the Incarnation.

That is why I prefer the "change of mind" view for the passage in question (as it also involves His humanity) over the "yet" view.

Thanks
HankD

 

Was Jesus lying when at the wedding feast in Cana, he told his mother, “Mine hour is not yet come.” And then proceeded to perform a miracle? (John 2:4)

In John 7, Jesus told his contemptuous brothers,
I go not up unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.
ASV

I’m not going up to the festival
└> because my time has not yet come.

When the condition in the final clauses changes, it modifies the declaration of the initial statement.
Or to say it slightly differently: When the final clauses conditions are met, the first clause is open to change.

I’m not going to eat the pizza
└> because I’m full.

When I’m hungry again I can eat the pizza …. without lying.

Jesus was free to go to the festival when the time and conditions for him to do so came.
If he went earlier with his brothers, the Jews were looking for him and he would have been recognized and killed.

Its not a matter of him changing his mind.

His time was a bit later, the condition was quietly, in secret.

So whether the word “yet” is included or not makes little difference.

I think you’re looking for something you may never find, perfection here on earth.

The translators of the KJV were wise. They strived for the best translation they could but never declared themselves or their work to be specially set apart from the others.

No, perhaps both renderings can’t be right, but given the data, they can both be honored, considered and studied.

It’s disingenuous to imply that Jesus lies in any version.

Rob

 

I agree. I don't think there was any question that Jesus would attend this feast. He knew He was going when the time was right.

Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. (v. 3) ​

Jesus replied to the above demand by these selfish unbelieving "brethern". He would not be going on their terms (at that time, with them, for their purposes). I believe that the word "yet" is not completely neccessary when set in this context.

 

OK but a change of circumstance sets off a new thought process.

Do you want some pizza? No. I'm full.

4 hours later...

Do you want some pizza? Yes, I've changed my mind, I'm hungry now.

HankD

 

I don't believe that Jesus was influenced by circumstances, although it may appear that way to others. God is not waiting to react to what humans might or might not do; that would be 'open' theology.

 

Frank, don't forget He was human as well as God come in the flesh.

I didn't say God "is waiting to react to what humans do".

But Jesus Christ as a mortal human being spontaneously reacted to and was influenced by the circumstances of life.

He reacted to and was influenced daily by circumstance: eating when He was hungry, drinking when He was thirsty, resting and/or sleeping when He was tired, praying when He was in need.

He also reacted with amazement to circumstance...

Mark 6:3

4 And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching.​

He was influenced and reacted to how His mortal life would end by asking His father for "this cup" to "pass away" from Him.

Then He was surprised and reacted when finding His disciples asleep.
I don't think He was faking amazment or putting on an act.

Matthew 26

38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?​

I don't believe the "emptying" of the doctrine of the Kenosis of Christ (* see link below) detracts from His omniscience or sovereignty. I don't understand how it works but I believe He was fully human (apart from sin) and was influenced by and reacted to the circumstances of life just as we do apart from sin.

Hebrews 5

7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear,
8 though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation;​

* Kenosis: http://www.gotquestions.org/kenosis.html

HankD

 

hey, go start a thread.

 

Yep, I agree, except they are doing it, again.

 

You agree with secular reasoning. Jesus never changed his mind, he fully intended to go to the feast at the appointed time to fulfill the prophecy of his timely death.

I do find that God has repeneted of the evil he would do to Ninevah, but that was due to the obedience of Jonah and the repentence of Ninevah. His will was done and he did not change his mind.

God fully intended for Ninevah to repent.

The will of God was done in Jerusalem concerning the "feast"/ Passover.

To deduce the deity of Christ being in any way his being subject to his humanity denies his very Deity.

What I've found is those who argue FOR new versions think in circles like Jesus to have ever changed his mind.:sleep:

 

Sorry, this is so true, but glad he's on my ignore list.

 

Brother, just stick with the KJV and you won't go wrong. They will continue to bash theur brains out against the brick walls of taking a stand for the KJV.

 

The KJV relates the word as per its source texts, which used the word. That's all it does.

That's not why found in the KJV. It's found in the KJV because it's in the source texts used by the KJV. Other translations that use the same source texts likewise use the word. It's not a KJV issue. The only objection is to the OP which attempts to make a KJV issue where none exists.