One changed doctrine please?

I'll give it a few hours till I get up here on GMT - if it is still another thread on the same old topic I will have to close it. This needs to be back in another forum if it is going to run again.

[ November 12, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

heeellll.....geeeeheeennaaaa.

Ringgggggggg!
Oh, time to go home!

 

Believe what you want James, I would show you what I believe the difference is but I'm not going to 1) because of the request of the moderator and 2) I believe certain individuals would make it into an occassion of the flesh and use my explanation to cause further strife and division.

HankD

 

Brother, if you have a reason, I would like to hear it. Start another thread if you like. Or PM me, I don't mind taking it off line.

 

Well, no it doesn't, but I don't think it changes any doctrine. Both translations still have Jesus equal to God, and both translations have him voluntarily lowering himself. The gist of the whole passage is the same.

This, by the way, is not a textual issue (nobody has to be a textual critic), but an exact word definition issue. The word translated "robbery" can mean either "to forcibly sieze" (robbery) or "to tenaciously hold onto" (grasp). It takes it's precise definition from the context--as many words do--and obviously, translators have differed over which way the context points in this case.

My personal opinion is that the contextual point of this phrase is that Christ voluntarily gave up something--he didn't chose to hold on to something that was rightfully his, rather than that he didn't have to forcibly seize his Godness as it rightfully belonged to him (which is true, but I think it's more assumed here rather than specifically pointed out.)

I would base this on the fact that the point of the whole passage here is that we are to have Christ's mind: we are not to only consider our own things--what is rightfully ours, but rather consider others' rights above our own. We are to humble ourselves just like Jesus did--he voluntarily gave up something that was rightfully his for the sake of others. He didn't grasp onto his status, but let go of it for our sake.

 

No, not now James. Maybe later. Maybe never.

In my opinion, folks (not just you) are getting into a destructive one-ups-manship thing with this issue.

In fact every issue around the KJVO theories seem always to end up here in what one of these koine words means.

James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

HankD

 

No where does it say "he emptied himself".

"he humbled himself".

Oh, great. Now we are all highter critics. </font>[/QUOTE]It has nothing to do with higher criticism. The humbling was the kenosis, the emptying. The KJV doesn't say humbled ... It says "made himself of no reputation." The NASB95 (God's real word) uses "emptied." Which is why I did. It is what is freshest on my mind. The point is the meaning of the verse.

 

The Greek translates in verse 7 He emptied himself and in verse 8 He humbled himself.