Deity of Jesus with absolute certainty

Amen, Brother DeclareHim -- Preach it! </font>[/QUOTE]I'll try thanks for the encouragement. .

 

Correcting the English in this sentence
using modern conventions and modern
21st century English.


"He" does not belong in that verse.
This is the point.

or clearer still:

The word "He" does not belong in that
verse. This is the point.

Note that the correcting of this poor
English is not the same as agreeing with
the proposition of the sentence NOR disagreeing.

BTW, i don't expect that anybody who is
not aware of (ignorant) OR PRACTICE (apathetic)
good 21st Century English can be believed on
any matter concerning: English, languages,
translations, etc.

 

They have taken God's name out of this verse and replaced it with a generic pronoun, and sowing doubt to the reader. This is unacceptable to me. How can you condone such a thing and then claim to love the word of God?

But it's perfectly ok to give the Holy Spirit a gender neutral wording calling Him "itself"!

Whay about this:

They have taken the male gender name of the Holy Spirit "Himself" out of this verse and replaced it with a neutral gender rendering "itself", and sowing doubt to the reader. This is unacceptable to me. How can you condone such a thing and then claim to love the word of God?

Don't you love KJVO word games!

 

Why not Ransom. Satan is still attacking God's Word by those in the KJVO camps that attack the MV's? It shouldn't surprise you that this tactic is one of Satans favorites....divide and conquer.

AVL1984

 

Michelle, if he was to have appeared in bodily form, he was manifested in the flesh. It's a different way of stating it, so you're really building a straw man.

AVL1984

 

michelle said:

Trotter, you might want to stop focusing upon such wordly programs as schoolhouse rock and stop attributing those things to the scriptures to which are the very words of God.

Perhaps your disdain for such "worldly" things as grammar, explains your inability to rightly divide the word of truth?

When Paul wrote of "He who was manifest in the flesh," the early church recognized whom he meant right away. Apparently it takes a KJV-onlyist to mix it up.

You gotta laugh.

 

Where do you get that??? What do you think being in bodily form is...being manifest in the form of a pumpkin? Michelle, get real. CONTEXT, dear, CONTEXT!

AVL1984

 

I've checked with many people who read the NIV, and they don't seem to have a problem recognizing that this is God. How can you bear false witnesses against your brethren in the Lord and claim to love them or the Word of God? You deny your own posting and signature line. To degrade someone's faith because they use a different VERSION of the Bible than your choice makes your words hollow and meaningless.

AVL1984

 

Michelle, "HE" is clearly speaking of God/Christ. You're grasping at straws at best, and it isn't becoming of you.
AVL1984

 

Since nobody has corrected this, I guess I will. The NIV does not capitalize pronouns referring to God. It is like the KJV in that regard. 1 Timothy 4:16 contains a capital "He" because it is the start of a sentence. (And yes, a colon can end a sentence.)

It is amusing that no KJV-onlyists have pounced on this error yet, but I suppose that's to be expected when most of them have never read an NIV. Not sure why others didn't notice, though.

 

It is not common to end a sentence in a colon. You refer to I Tim 4:16. I don't believe this was the verse being discussed. I also don't believe it was the translators of the NIV's intention to end a sentence with a colon, but to imply there was more to the sentence. I could be wrong. Could you please list a viable source that proves that this was their intention?

AVL1984

 

Oops -- typo. Should have been 1 Tim. 3:16.

Other examples are Matt. 1:18 and Phil. 1:1-2. When a colon introduces an independent clause, the independent clause is capitalized.

The best example that shows this that I've seen is 2 Tim. 2:11. Note that in this verse, like 3:16, the colon is at a transition between prose and poetry. The poetry is a stand-alone sentence (if you follow it to verse 13). In this case, the capitalized word is "If" which would not be capitalized for other reasons, such as indicating a pronoun that relates to God. This verse also contains many pronouns that do refer to God that are not capitalized.

---

Now, all that aside, I wonder how KJV-onlyists deal with 2 Tim. 2:11-13 in the KJV:

"It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."

All those pronouns and not a proper noun in sight! How can we ever know who all those "him"s and "he"s refer to?

[ September 07, 2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

Everyone makes typo's Merc! Even me! LOL

Even if it was the intention of the NIV translators to end the sentence in a colon, it doesn't negate the fact that the "He" in the verse in the NIV would have been referring to God, not in the form of some generic pronoun as Michelle has insisted. It is clearly God/Christ being referred to.

Thank you for the examples. I'm glad you were on your toes!

AVL1984

 

Correct. If anyone had trouble figuring out who the "He" in this verse referred to, no doubt they'd also have problems finding out who the KJV is referring to in 2 Tim. 2:11-13. I look forward to seeing if that's the case.

 

Correct. If anyone had trouble figuring out who the "He" in this verse referred to, no doubt they'd also have problems finding out who the KJV is referring to in 2 Tim. 2:11-13. I look forward to seeing if that's the case. </font>[/QUOTE]This will be fun to watch. I'm sure that it will be ignored! She ignored my post about calling the Holy Spirit "itself".

 

Mercury: "It is amusing that no KJV-onlyists
have pounced on this error yet, but I suppose that's
to be expected when most of them have never read an NIV."

"Most" (more than 50%) of those opposed to KJVO-ism read
NIVs and have NIVs. They check it out frequently. Though
I must admit, if it weren't for most (over 50%) KJVOs
that post here being lazy (quoting others only, never
looking up their own verses to counter) I'd never read my
NIV, as it is was down my list of good versions to use.

Sister Michelle and one brother are both on record as
having nothing other than a KJB (KJV version unknown)
and having no desire to look into anything but a KJB
(including i suspect another KJV).
By contrast, some anti-KJVOs testify they were KJVO themselves
but "saw the light" when they looked into another KJV edition.

Now that I've checked a NIV I see that "He" is the beginning
of a section of poetry type structure. In the NASB each
line of the poem starts with a capital. So i blame this
minsunderstanding about the capital "H" in "He" on the people
who were quoting the NIV in the wrong format - the KJVOs.
I note that their source of the NIV reading, the works
of an unskilled & illogical writer, was also using the wrong
format and the local KJVO did not check the NIV itself.

 

Sister Michelle and one brother are both on record as having nothing other than a KJB

broEdEd~please add me to that record. Perhaps not everyone knows da granny's hands ain't never touched another!

 

While I agree with you 1)There can be no absolute certainty other than a faith choice, 2) There is no need to question another's love of the Word of God because they have made a different faith choice based on alternative evidence and 3) do you object as much to the word "God" being added to the KJV where it is not present in the original language text, such as "God forbid" or "would to God"?

HankD

 

Correct. If anyone had trouble figuring out who the "He" in this verse referred to, no doubt they'd also have problems finding out who the KJV is referring to in 2 Tim. 2:11-13. I look forward to seeing if that's the case. </font>[/QUOTE]This will be fun to watch. I'm sure that it will be ignored! She ignored my post about calling the Holy Spirit "itself". </font>[/QUOTE]She ignores a lot of posts that take her to task because she has no proof, which is typical for many kjVERSION Only's. They use circular reasoning, posting long quotes of scripture that has absolutely nothing to do with proving their points, and attacks on the brethren calling their faith, salvation and intelligence, including their direction from the Lord into question. I find this totally inacceptable. She still has yet to tell us which version of the kjVERSION is the perfectly preserved Word of God from which year, and which type...the Oxford or the Cambridge.

AVL1984

 

Anybody see any reason to keep this thread open beyond page 5?