The Deity Of Christ In The NIV And KJV

Suppose your name is "Robert", I don't otherwise, but I referred to you as "robert". I would be showing a grammtical error in not recognizing you in respect to your person but would actually be in disrespect to you.

I really don't expect you to understand the importance of grammatical rules either.

 

OK Professor Salamander, make your case. Diagram 2 Peter 1:1 and show how having savior as a proper noun vs common noun apart from the subject will change the meaning of the verse.

 

This arguement is why the KJVO stance has become sickening to me. I would like to laugh, but it is just so sad.

I checked Blue Letter Bible online and according to it, the NIV has Savior. It is capitalized.

But using Salamander's grammatical rules, I would like to know why the KJV does not capitalize the personal pronouns of God, Him, His, He? Using this line of thinking (not capitalizing savior/saviour as disrespectful), then why isn't it disrespectful to use lower case h when using pronouns for God?

I don't expect an answer.

 

Bingo!

Give that man the kewpie doll.

Ed

 

Brother franklinmonroe gave a good response to this question about 6 mos. ago when he posted this in another thread to another subject, which I shall quote, with emphasis.

Personally, I'd say that franklinmonroe has pretty well done 'hit the nail with his head'. And dead-center, at that!

BTW, I'll ask the question of what difference does it make, in the number of letters in the English spelling, bein' as the Greek word from which this is rendered, [σωτηρ (sOter)] is five letters and the Hebrew word from which it is rendered, [transliterated as yasha, sorry, I cannot get the Hebrew to print on my computer, but the letters are 'yod', 'shin', and 'ayin' from what I'm able to ascertain] is three letters?

One has to stretch all linguistic credibility far beyond the breaking point, in order to 'impose' some 'Biblical numerology' theory, which is nowhere given in Scripture, in the first place, as to the claimed implications, into some preferred spelling of centuries old 'Anglicized' English vs. modern 'Americanized' English.

(Never even mind, that the only reason any 'KJV' got into 'the public domain' in the United States, in the first place, was by someone stealing the rights to it, hence ripping off the Church of England and the British Crown. BTW, the Tyndale Bible, Matthews Bible, and the Geneva Bible, among other English versions, had no such rights, FTR, so anyone could print and publish any of them, entirely legally.) But back to the subject:

Fine to personally prefer one or the other. Not very good to hold up the weight of Bible Doctrine on, though.

Also consistent with the question I just askes above, is why was it permissible to 'update' the spelling of, say, "cattell" to "cattle", as was seemingly done by Benjamin Blayney in 1769, but not for another to 'update' the spelling of "Saviour" to "Savior", today? (If you really want to see how the KJV spelled words, check some of the posts of Ed Edwards, who often quotes from a reproduction of the 1611 Edition.) I fail to see the difference, and "I ain't no 'Englishman'", so I do not really care which spelling is currently preferred "across the big pond".

Ed

 

Ed

 

and then in the same post, we have...

You'd think that every now and then Sal would slip up and not insult people. Oh well, he must have too much fun attacking folks.

Careful. Well thought-out responses bring attacks from Salamander

 

This is how 2 Peter 1:11 looks in my 1611 First Edition facsimile: ​

2 Peter 1
11 For so an entrance shall be ministred vnto you abundantly into the euerlasting kingdome of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ.

So why not use our dear Savior's name as it appears in the 1611 original with an "I" rather than a "J"?

HankD​

 

Sister Amy started this Topic with nothing.
Ed expects that she will end the topic at the close with most of
it (the 'nothing') left.

 

Amen, Brother Rbell -- Teach it (the above quote)!! :thumbs:

You (Rbell) are so RIGHT ON!!


- Ed,
A 214-pound-chunk of the Body of Christ (Sauiour Iesus!)

 

It's like kicking a tank with a pair sneakers, thinking that you can hurt it.

 

The NIV is very strong on the Deity of Christ and so are all the modern versions that I have read. It seems that to me that some put too much trust in the falicious Bible version comparison charts. They claim that a certain word is omitted from the Bible, but when I read the entire passage in question I find that much of the charts are full of misrepresentation at best and outright lies at worst.

I have seen it argued of another board that the problem with modern versions is not that they take away from the Deity of Christ, but they take away the humanity of Christ. I asked him how they did this, but could never get a straight answer from him.

 

Criticism of one's ideals brings on the attacks on my person by both Ed and rbell.

Accusing a brother in Christ of being a "demon" shows the brotherly love directed from I John.raying:

 

And the KJB remains STRONGER!

 

Obviously synonomous statements don't fit into your ideal of grammar.

 

God is our Saviour. A savior can be anyone who saved another by any means to preserve the mortal.

God not only can preserve the mortal, but also can and will preserve the immortal.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense to some, even though it is perfectly Biblical.

 

Why don't you expect an answer? Could it be you are already decided in respect to my person? Yes.

I don't see how determing the intent of the mind of Chrsit would be sickening to anyone, except, well......

 

Nice censure there to try and prove your so-called point. Now, so you won't remain to appear so dishonest, go and quote the ACTUAL NEGATIVE THAT AGREES WITH THE OTHER ACTAUL NEGATIVE THY ENGLISH MAJOR.

Was I "yelling"? I guess so, the keyboard has a way of sensing my agitation with those who dishonestly represent the words of another, especially since it is common here in the BB.

 

Touche':laugh:

Pot calls kettle "Black!" then looks in mirror and all he can see is white. But then if he'd wash his mirror more often he'd find out that shaving cream left on a mirror remains white, even after years of neglect.