Parents vs father

No, neither the KJV nor any other Bible version supports the KJVO myth. KJVOism is a man-made myth based in deep error and it is not found in any Bible version.

Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus, but he was the legal father of the child.

Then by your own standard the KJV diminishes the virgin birth.

You see, Askjo, using the word parents is the same as saying "father and mother." Joseph was the legal, although not the natural, father of Jesus. If the modern versions diminish the virgin birth as you claim, then the KJV does the same thing. You can't have a double standard here - well, it is obvious you have a double standard, but just because that error is what you believe doesn't make it right. If the MVs are wrong in calling Joseph Jesus' father, then so is the KJV. It's either right or wrong - not right in one version and wrong in another as you erroneously think.

Please stop promoting a double standard that makes the KJV right in all things while the MVs are wrong in the same areas. It just ain't so, Askjo!

 

I confess I do not understand why Askjo insists on arguing this point in the face of overwhelming Biblical evidence that Jesus' was considered Joseph's son (a relationship that causes Joseph to be His 'father'). I quote some clear proof from the KJV --

Luke 3:23 says, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,"

John 1:45 says, "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

John 6:42 says, "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"

He does not seem to deny Joseph was wedded to Mary the mother of Jesus, and therefore it is simply not reasonable to deny Joseph's role as His legal, earthly 'father'. Even if it could be successfully argued that 'parent' doesn't mean 'father' (which I don't think can be done) it doesn't change the essential fact and is pointless. Askjo is losing much credibility with me over his illogical pursuit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Askjo
If Luke wrote, “his father and his mother,” the virgin birth is diminished.

I was going to try and stay out of this but it came up so I will comment. Will probably regret this but here we go anyway - I'm trying to not bash or be disrepectful here.

No, I disagree – the virgin birth is diminished when you replace Joseph with father. The fact that other verses elsewhere help to hold up the truth that Joseph did not father Jesus doesn’t make it right to replace Joseph with father. Why?

When the Holy Spirit put Joseph there (I believe He did while it appears many question that based upon the manuscripts you go by) a definitive statement was made – Joseph did not father Jesus – case closed. If all other verses were not there only leaving “Joseph and his mother” then the Holy Spirit was making it clear here and this one verse would all be that is needed.

The same goes for Matt. 1:25 – by the Holy Spirit putting in the word “firstborn” then it becomes conclusive that Mary had more children. Rome can say the other verses refer to the brothers and sisters are really “cousins” all they want but if firstborn is in Matt. 1:25 (and I believe it should be there) then case closed – Rome loses out on the perpetual virginity of their Mary doctrine.

It appears many today are not as concerned in the individual “words” of the scripture. It appears to me that many today believe that as long as the “message” or the “thought” is somewhere in whatever version they use then it is ok. I believe God is interested in his “individual words” and these little 2 and 3 letter words make a difference – such as “in” vs. “of” or “a” vs. “the” or “ye” vs. “you”. Paul said, “Preach the word…” not “Preach the message or thoughts.” Jesus said, If a man love me, he will keep my words: - God is interested in his individual words. If you are going to preach the “message” then make sure it contains the “word or words” of God otherwise nothing happens. They have to be God’s words for them to be quick and powerful – Heb. 4:12.

The message of God is made up of individual words and one ought to make sure the individual words are right.

Firstborn and Joseph make both verses more clear and exact – you take them out or change them (like has been done) then you have just made it less exact and precise.

This is not a “KJV only, KJV myth” issue (gets so old especially millions prior to you folks believed there was only one Bible) – this is an issue of what is more exact and conclusive. Do you folks really believe that the removal of firstborn and putting father in is clearer? Now, if you go by the Wescott/Hort/Egypt way then yes, the words should be changed but many of us do not stand on the minority texts. I don’t care if some of the earlier bibles left out firstborn, etc. My authority is not footnotes, translators’’ personal thoughts, Tyndale’s, Geneva, etc. My authority is the text of a present day King James Bible which you folks have yet to show that these modern versions are more precise and accurate in the “individual words” and their English definitons.

Many keep saying that we are just spoon-fed by Dr. Ruckman, Fuller, Dial-A-Truth, etc. Well, who teaches you? I ask this respectfully - not trying to be smart-mouthed here. Who taught you there were so many “defects” in a KJV? What marketing firm finally convinced you that the modern versions are so “reliable”? It appears many folks just sit around waiting for the next “new and improved” version to come out. Started with the RV 1881, then the AV1901, the RSV, then The NASV, then TLT, the Holman, etc…what next? One would think that after a 100 or so they’d get it right. How can they – they all come from the same set of minority manuscripts – just some word and phrase changes – still the same old stuff with new and improved marketing techniques with a different paint job and folks keep falling for it and most likely will accept even more “new” old stuff with a new paint job.

God bless

 

It was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the reading or rendering "Joseph" at Luke 2:33 into the English Bible, and the KJV kept or followed the Geneva Bible's rendering at this verse. All the other pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision had "his father" at Luke 2:33.

Are you suggesting that God was not interested and involved in the making of the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was specifically a revision and in the making of Tyndale's (from which many KJV-only authors claim that 70 to 90% of the KJV comes)? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that God was not interested in? Are you arguing or implying that God was not interested in his "individual words" before 1560? Are you claiming that English-speaking believers today must have something that English-speaking believers before 1560 did not have, did not need, or did not deserve?

 

AVBunyan: //Paul said, “Preach the word…” not “Preach
the message or thoughts.” //

IMHO there is no difference in meaning between the
two statements. The words are different but the meaning
is the same.

BTW, believing that the mere words a person says can
control unseen forces & supernatural entities' is MAGIC.
People who use magic are Pagans not Christians.

Heb 4:12 (KJV1611 Edition):
For the word of God is quicke and powerfull,
and sharper then any two edged sword,
pearcing euen to the diuiding asunder of soule
and spirit, and of the ioynts and marrowe, and
is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

'Word' here is from the Greek LOGOS:
the living word of God: Messiah Jesus.
Please do NOT confuse it with the
Greek RHEMA, the written word of God:
the Holy Bible.

 

So, Ed, the word of God in Heb. 4:12 refers to the living Word who is seated at the right hand of God right now?

So then, this verse can have no practical application to us today since Jesus does not speak to saints audibly today? I thought the verse read, "For the word of God is (present tense) quick,...If the word here refers to only the "living Word" then it would appear to me that it would not benefit me today. What am I missing here?

If I want to "hear" what Jesus says to me today then I go to his words which are written down for me to read. God speaks to me throught the written word. I believe God's completed revelation today is found in a King James Bible.

God bless

 

AVBunyan: //God speaks to me throught the written word. I believe God's completed revelation today is found in a King James Bible.//

I believe that also. So you have no moral High Ground there.
I believe that God's completed revelation today is found
in each one of the three King James Versions of which I
have copies - even though they are punctuated (i.e. read) different
and have different words. Further, I believe that the
Written Word of God is contained wholy and inerrantly in
my HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ and written
there in 21st Century (2001-2100) English, the same English spoken
in the market place TODAY. (The KJV1611 Edition contains the
same language spoken in Medeival Fairs. Needless to say, there
are more market places today than Medieval Fairs.)

Ed Edwards: //'Word' here is from the Greek LOGOS:
the living word of God: Messiah Jesus.
Please do NOT confuse it with the
Greek RHEMA, the written word of God: the Holy Bible.//

AVBunyan: //So, Ed, the word of God in Heb. 4:12 refers
to the living Word who is seated at the right hand of God right now?//

You are so right about that.

AVBunyan: //So then, this verse can have no practical application
to us today since Jesus does not speak to saints audibly today? //

You are so wrong about that. Written words speaking audibly is
a metaphor (unless 'as' is there in which case it is a similie)
understand them. Even deaf people can 'hear' (meaning 'understand')
the living word of God.

 

Based upon the above quote, logically then AVBunyan would say the the Holy Spirit failed to prevent the impression that Joseph is Jesus' father in these other verses of the KJV--

John 6:42 says, "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"

Luke 3:23 says, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,"

John 1:45 says, "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

When the KJV says that Jesus is the son of Joseph, are readers not supposed to think that the relationship of Joseph to Jesus is that of His father?

 

av BUNYAN: I was going to try and stay out of this but it came up so I will comment. Will probably regret this but here we go anyway - I'm trying to not bash or be disrepectful here.

We know that...but you're still incorrect. Read on...

No, I disagree – the virgin birth is diminished when you replace Joseph with father. The fact that other verses elsewhere help to hold up the truth that Joseph did not father Jesus doesn’t make it right to replace Joseph with father. Why?

Joseph was Jesus' legal earthly father, plain and simple. Jesus obviously had a babyhood , same as any ordinary person had. There's no denying that, although He is eternal, having no beginning, He became carnal for awhile by being born of a normal woman in the normal manner. No Christian denies Mary was His human mother. But no Christian denies He was "sired" by the HOLY SPIRIT, nor says He was sired by Joseph. Why do people think He couldn't have had an earthly stepfather?

When the Holy Spirit put Joseph there (I believe He did while it appears many question that based upon the manuscripts you go by) a definitive statement was made – Joseph did not father Jesus – case closed. If all other verses were not there only leaving “Joseph and his mother” then the Holy Spirit was making it clear here and this one verse would all be that is needed.

Someone not an experienced Bible reader or Christian could take the opposite tack...that Joseph was not Mary's husband. Broad as it is long, isn't it?

The same goes for Matt. 1:25 – by the Holy Spirit putting in the word “firstborn” then it becomes conclusive that Mary had more children. Rome can say the other verses refer to the brothers and sisters are really “cousins” all they want but if firstborn is in Matt. 1:25 (and I believe it should be there) then case closed – Rome loses out on the perpetual virginity of their Mary doctrine.

No BAPTIST believes otherwise. From Scripture:Matthew 13:55
"Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?"

You are just GUESSING that the HS placed the word there. If He had done so, it would appear in every ms and translation. It's quite obvious that Jesus was her firstborn, as she was still a virgin when He was born.

It appears many today are not as concerned in the individual “words” of the scripture. It appears to me that many today believe that as long as the “message” or the “thought” is somewhere in whatever version they use then it is ok. I believe God is interested in his “individual words” and these little 2 and 3 letter words make a difference – such as “in” vs. “of” or “a” vs. “the” or “ye” vs. “you”. Paul said, “Preach the word…” not “Preach the message or thoughts.” Jesus said, If a man love me, he will keep my words: - God is interested in his individual words. If you are going to preach the “message” then make sure it contains the “word or words” of God otherwise nothing happens. They have to be God’s words for them to be quick and powerful – Heb. 4:12.

If that was entirely true, then God woulda made the languages able to be EXACTLY translated into other languages. We know that's not the case at all.

The message of God is made up of individual words and one ought to make sure the individual words are right.

The individual words in the oldest examples of written Scripture often do not translate into an exact English word or phrase. While a fair amount of English has come from Greek, there are very few English words that are an exact literal translation from Greek. I believe GOD made the languages AS HE CHOSE, & trying to make an exact 100% translation is impossible.

Firstborn and Joseph make both verses more clear and exact – you take them out or change them (like has been done) then you have just made it less exact and precise.

Not really...God gave us brains that have cognitive recognition which He expects us to use.

This is not a “KJV only, KJV myth” issue (gets so old especially millions prior to you folks believed there was only one Bible) – this is an issue of what is more exact and conclusive.

Then how come it was never an issue until some KJVOs, desperate for something...ANYTHING...to try to make someone believe their myth and buy their books made it an issue? I believe it originated with Terry Watkins, a groddy KJVO author known more for nonsense and stupidity than for any facts. It's found in HIS article on the "Dial-A-Lie" site. Sorry, Mr. Bunyan; the evidence speaks for itself. It *IS* a KJVO issue.


Do you folks really believe that the removal of firstborn and putting father in is clearer? Now, if you go by the Wescott/Hort/Egypt way then yes, the words should be changed but many of us do not stand on the minority texts.

Do you REALLY know which is correct and which isn't? or are ya trying to pull a rabbit outta a hat? Can you feel inside the hat without looking, to know if you've gotten aholda a rabbit, or a SKUNK?


I don’t care if some of the earlier bibles left out firstborn, etc. My authority is not footnotes, translators’’ personal thoughts, Tyndale’s, Geneva, etc. My authority is the text of a present day King James Bible which you folks have yet to show that these modern versions are more precise and accurate in the “individual words” and their English definitons.

In other words, you're merely GUESSING.

Many keep saying that we are just spoon-fed by Dr. Ruckman, Fuller, Dial-A-Truth, etc.

WHEN A PERSON REPEATS THEIR BALONEY, WHAT ELSE ARE WE TO THINK? No disrespect meant here, Mr. Bunyan, but if it looks like a rose, sounds like a rose, moves like a rose....


Well, who teaches you? I ask this respectfully - not trying to be smart-mouthed here. Who taught you there were so many “defects” in a KJV? What marketing firm finally convinced you that the modern versions are so “reliable”?

It's called "study". Does your KJV not tell ya to study?


It appears many folks just sit around waiting for the next “new and improved” version to come out. Started with the RV 1881, then the AV1901, the RSV, then The NASV, then TLT, the Holman, etc…what next? One would think that after a 100 or so they’d get it right. How can they – they all come from the same set of minority manuscripts – just some word and phrase changes – still the same old stuff with new and improved marketing techniques with a different paint job and folks keep falling for it and most likely will accept even more “new” old stuff with a new paint job.

Again, no disrespect meant, but you're using circular reasoning, assuming the KJV is the paragon of English-language Bibles, assuming it's the ONLY valid version...without being able to prove the first blip. You're assuming what you should be PROVING. You're assuming "facts" not in EVIDENCE.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.....

This whole "Joseph" thingie is a farce. You said you believe every word of the KJV, correct? Then you MUST believe Joseph was Jesus' earthly father as your KJV says, or you're not believing all of it. The facts are :

1.) Jesus was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit.

2.) He conceived Jesus by supernatural means, as Scripture says she remained a VIRGIN until after Jesus was born. Thus, Jesus HAD to have been her firstborn.

3.) Joseph had married her before Jesus was born. By both Roman and Jewish law, he was the legal earthly father of Jesus.

4.) Joseph provided for Jesus' earthly needs, including teaching Him the carpenter's trade. And while a child, He was subject to J&M.(Luke 2:51)

5.) In Scripture, Joseph is called Jesus' father several times. Those writers had firsthand knowledge of how Jesus came to earth as a human. LUKE knew Jesus had come by the Holy Spirit, but he still called Joseph His father.(Not SIRE)

I hate to be repetitive, but the simple truth is that Joseph was Jesus' earthly father, and the desperate KJVOs have tried to make an issue of it. What's SO-O-O laughable about it is that the KJV does the very same thing the KJVO homeboys diss the other versions for doing.

C4K, I see nothing new being offered by anyone, and we've repeated every argument that was made here in the past on this subject. If you see nothing new from Askjo, who started this thread...............

 

It will die its only death if we would all stop - well, I have expressed my own view on this topic .

Its not in violation of the rules - its on topic, so, why don't we just let it die?

 

Sometimes death can be a s-l-o-w process.:smilewinkgrin:

Bro Tony

 

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language,
Second College Edition (William Collins, 1978):

1. a man who has engendered a child: esp. a man as he is related
to his child or children 2. a) a stepfather b) a father-in-law
3. the male parent of a plant or animal 4. a person regared as
a male parent; protector 5. Father, God, or God as the first
person of the Trinity 6. a forefather: ancestor, etc.

Joseph is not the father1 of Jesus.
Joseph is the father2A of Jesus.
Joseph is not the father3 of Jesus.
Joseph is the father4 of Jesus.
Joesph is not the Father5 of Jesus.
Joseph is the (legal) father6 of Jesus.

 

Problem is everyone has to have the last word .

"Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out..."

 

I understand the first point: that John is merely reporting what these people said; it is an accurate portrayal of what people naturally thought about Joseph at that time. But the people thought it and said it aloud because in several normal senses it was true (although not in the biological sense).

Why are you so offended that people recognized that Jesus had a male caretaker during his early childhood on earth? Is there a better word for it? Would you prefer 'stepfather'? Although that would be a fair rendering of the Greek word pater according to Strong's definition under 2b "one who stands in a father's place and looks after another in a paternal way", it is probably not the way those people meant it in John 6:42, therefore the KJV properly has it "father".

I also understand the second point: that Jesus is merely included in the human genealogy; it is an indication of Jesus' place in human historical context.

Again, what else are people supposed to think based upon this verbiage? You seem to be disappointed with the way the Holy Spirit has chosen for it to be written here. The virginal conception is more than adequately represented elsewhere. What is it you want?

 

The bottom line is this: Joseph was not Jesus' natural father, but for all practical intents and purposes Joseph was considered as Jesus' father. Therefore, none of the MVs are wrong in calling Joseph Jesus' father - after all no Bible version I have ever seen says Joseph was Jesus' natural father. Neither is the KJV wrong in calling Joseph Jesus' father in the places where it does so.

 

"Merely included in the human genealogy"? Maybe you'd like to reword this. Especially in the light that this is "ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ ", the gospel picturing and presenting the Lord Jesus Christ as "The Perfect Man"; emphasizing Him as "the Son of Man"; the key verse summarizing Luke's gospel is Luke 19:10 - "10 for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (NKJV); and the Lord Jesus as anti-type of the fourfold OT presentation of the prophetic 'branch' imagery,

Exactly! Once the line has been crossed beyond what is the actual (or closest or best, as in this case) wording of the text as actually written by Luke, and given that Luke "has complete or perfect understanding 'from above'", there is no real and qualitative difference between the unbelief of a so-called 'liberal' de-mythologizing in a so-called 'search for the historical Jesus', a "Neo-orthodox' reformatting of an inspiration of ideas as opposed to words, or an approach that misguidedly seeks to 'enhance' the Deity of Jesus, at the expense of what does the text actually say. As I've already said, and now three times in this thread, the question of "What does the text actually say?" is completely legitimate. The question of "What should it say?" is completely speculative, and an attempt by some individual(s) to assume the role of the Holy Spirit, by determining what does, or does not "diminish" the Lord Jesus Christ.
And I am not attempting to hijack any thread, but this is somewhat akin to what I've argued on another thread about "making Jesus Lord of your life". While that may sound good, theologically, it can't be done, Biblically. Make Him Lord?? Scripture never anywhere says that we are to 'make him Lord!' "The Bible doesn't talk like that! God already beat you to it. Its already been done; you're too late! It never says 'Make Jesus Lord!' It says 'He IS Lord!!'"

What do they want??? I'll give you a small hint. It's four letters!

Ed

 

Confusion

AVBunyan said…
This is not a “KJV only, KJV myth” issue (gets so old especially millions prior to you folks believed there was only one Bible) – this is an issue of what is more exact and conclusive.

Robo responded…
“Then how come it was never an issue until some KJVOs, desperate for something...ANYTHING...to try to make someone believe their myth and buy their books made it an issue? Sorry, Mr. Bunyan; the evidence speaks for itself. It *IS* a KJVO issue.”

The reason we are talking about this today is because of the modern influx of these modern versions that have come on the scene and read differently than what has been the standard since 1611 or so. Very few folks (except maybe some “scholars”) sat around comparing 100 or different versions with one another like what is going on.

In the hold days prior to this modern “enlightened and educated” bunch the common saint (even the lost) accepted the King James as it stood so these types of discussions never took place around the family fireplace or tavern. Since “textual criticism” has now become the hobby of many a saint then everybody is now asking, “Are you sure it is there, I’m not sure, I think it was in the original, it is here in Holman and Good News, ASV but not in the New and Improved NIV!!!” Confusion and chaos reigns. I think I need to re-post my “Modern Bible Study”.

Bottom line – Generally those folks prior to this generation didn’t question the text of a King James Bible – they assumed it was the word of God and that it was correct. The difference between them and you folks is they didn’t have 100 or so newer versions to raise doubts (Gen. 3:1) and you folks have Greek/Hebrew scholars/professors, 100 or versions/lexicons, Dead Sea Scrolls and more to play with. They believed the book and most folks today (generally) do not believe the book (KJV) as it stands – they have multiple, conflicting authorities to create doubts and these kinds of discussions. :BangHead:


You see - the Christian world was doing fine with a King James Bible and then the newer versions started showing up and we Bible believers stood up and started warning folks about the errors and dangers and now it appears we are the "bad guys".