Bestseller Book.....New Age Versions of the Bible
- Thread starter SaintJoeNow
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
When I say perfect I am talking about how there was no printing or spelling errors. I can't call a bottle of water perfect unless it is 100% pure. If I spit in the bottle of water it is no longer perfect or pure. Perfect implies no errors or imperfections whatsoever. That is why I believe the 1769 is the final stage or step in God completing His perfect Word (With the process of perfection beginning in 1611); This translation (or perfect preservation of God's Word) was intended for our world language today (Which is English). Just as the writings of Paul in Greek were intended for it's world language for it's day (Which was Greek).
Now, you could say that the 1611 was perfect for it's time. For printing and spelling errors was common place and accepted amongst written works. For the printing process was not perfected yet and neither was there any major standardization of spelling yet, either. But if one wants to be technical and precise... the 1769 (1611) is the final product or version of God's Word, which was intended to be His perfect Word for our world language today.
Last edited:
ok, now suppose a Christian lived in New York in 1780. Spelling was only recently standardized in Britian at that time, and was becoming standardized the old colonies, but with some differences... that's why usa posters today on CC spell some words differently than our friends in the UK... how many people, aside from some scholars at say, Oxford, had access to the right dictionary to test the spellings, and how many thought to?
So, getting back to our Christian in New York, was there someone going around telling people about the test? Saying, 'be sure to check that really expensive bible on your mantle, and if the spellings aren't exactly right (based on the British dictionary that matches the new spellings), then it's not God's perfect word. Get rid of it and buy another bible published after 1769'?
So, getting back to our Christian in New York, was there someone going around telling people about the test? Saying, 'be sure to check that really expensive bible on your mantle, and if the spellings aren't exactly right (based on the British dictionary that matches the new spellings), then it's not God's perfect word. Get rid of it and buy another bible published after 1769'?
ok good... so our hypothetical Christian living in New York... turn the clock back 20 years... it's now 1760... she knows there have been improvements in printing since her bible was made... she thinks it has errors, but she can't be sure where they are.
Now it's 1612... a Christian hears that a new bible is out. They want to test it, but they can't figure out what test to use.
Now it's 1612... a Christian hears that a new bible is out. They want to test it, but they can't figure out what test to use.
So we're clear, you're arguing that the word Godhead had a meaning in the 17th and 18th centuries that is entirely different to the meaning the word actually has? That we've had to wait until the 20th century before people understood Godhead to be a specific reference to each of the Trinitarian persons of God? Do you believe people in the time of the KJV would have read Godhead as naturally and normally referring explicitly referring to the threefold personhood of the Trinity, and not just in a general sense to God's divine nature? Do you believe the KJV translators, and the chief theologians of the time, would have understood Godhead as we do, or not?
You'll note, of course, that Colossians 2:2, even in the KJV, is not a Trinitarian reference. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in all of Colossians 2. This does not help your argument, unfortunately.
This is true. But it does not help us with the word 'Godhead'
I agree. But Christ being in the Father and the Father in Christ Christ (in the same way the church is in Christ and the Father) is a very different concept to the Father, Son and Spirit dwelling in the body of Christ. I'm sure you're not about to argue that the church is part of the Godhead, so it's clear that what Jesus is talking about in John 17 is not directly equatable to what Paul is writing in Colossians
To perhaps put my initial point more pointedly - if the 3 persons of the Trinity=Godhead, and if we interpret Colossians 2:9 as therefore necessarily saying that the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were not just in each other in a spiritual sense, but in fact dwelt in Christ equally, then do you by extension believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were crucified in Christ?
You'll note, of course, that Colossians 2:2, even in the KJV, is not a Trinitarian reference. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in all of Colossians 2. This does not help your argument, unfortunately.
This is true. But it does not help us with the word 'Godhead'
I agree. But Christ being in the Father and the Father in Christ Christ (in the same way the church is in Christ and the Father) is a very different concept to the Father, Son and Spirit dwelling in the body of Christ. I'm sure you're not about to argue that the church is part of the Godhead, so it's clear that what Jesus is talking about in John 17 is not directly equatable to what Paul is writing in Colossians
To perhaps put my initial point more pointedly - if the 3 persons of the Trinity=Godhead, and if we interpret Colossians 2:9 as therefore necessarily saying that the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were not just in each other in a spiritual sense, but in fact dwelt in Christ equally, then do you by extension believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were crucified in Christ?
This will be my last post on this line of discussion, because it's pretty pointless.
Yep. But the problem, in terms of this discussion, is not that we are arguing about whether or not that we should knowingly disobey God. The discussion we are having is about which Bibles count as God's Words that he wants us to have. So, while the discussion of Genesis 2 has I'm sure been edifying for us and for everyone else reading it, it's not directly relevant, because in Genesis 2, God's words are full known to all parties - Eve and then Adam simply choose to disobey.
To which I expect you will answer 'But it shows what tactics the devil uses'. Let's assume that that IS what's happening - that the Devil is trying to make us lose faith that what God has said is what God said. But why do you assume that only applies to what I've been saying, and not what you'e been saying? Why, when you read Genesis 2, you look at it is a proof for your position and against mine, rather than the other way around? I venture there is nothing inherent in your reading of the passage that should lead you to your conclusion, unless you import your own prejudices into the text and take what meaning you want out of it.
For instance, I have explicitly said to you on a number of occasions that the KJV is God's Word. I've already agreed with you on one translation where God's word can be found. If Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting faults and training in righteousness, then heck yes the KJV is all that.
But what you are doing is pointing at other Bibles that people use (that, when accounting for shifts in the English language that make up the baulk of differences, agrees with your Bible in 95% percent of places, with most of the rest never affects how you should live and what you should believe) and then saying to people "Hath God said?". Again, you say the man of God should detect the pattern of change - ergo, if you do not detect the pattern, if on comparison you do not see the problem, if you do not detect the 'inferiority' of modern translations, you are not a man of God.
It seems to me that if anyone is clouding the issue of what God said and where he said it, and causing people to doubt God's word where it can be found. it is you, not me.
Yep. But the problem, in terms of this discussion, is not that we are arguing about whether or not that we should knowingly disobey God. The discussion we are having is about which Bibles count as God's Words that he wants us to have. So, while the discussion of Genesis 2 has I'm sure been edifying for us and for everyone else reading it, it's not directly relevant, because in Genesis 2, God's words are full known to all parties - Eve and then Adam simply choose to disobey.
To which I expect you will answer 'But it shows what tactics the devil uses'. Let's assume that that IS what's happening - that the Devil is trying to make us lose faith that what God has said is what God said. But why do you assume that only applies to what I've been saying, and not what you'e been saying? Why, when you read Genesis 2, you look at it is a proof for your position and against mine, rather than the other way around? I venture there is nothing inherent in your reading of the passage that should lead you to your conclusion, unless you import your own prejudices into the text and take what meaning you want out of it.
For instance, I have explicitly said to you on a number of occasions that the KJV is God's Word. I've already agreed with you on one translation where God's word can be found. If Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting faults and training in righteousness, then heck yes the KJV is all that.
But what you are doing is pointing at other Bibles that people use (that, when accounting for shifts in the English language that make up the baulk of differences, agrees with your Bible in 95% percent of places, with most of the rest never affects how you should live and what you should believe) and then saying to people "Hath God said?". Again, you say the man of God should detect the pattern of change - ergo, if you do not detect the pattern, if on comparison you do not see the problem, if you do not detect the 'inferiority' of modern translations, you are not a man of God.
It seems to me that if anyone is clouding the issue of what God said and where he said it, and causing people to doubt God's word where it can be found. it is you, not me.
Just because it was not written down, doesn't mean certain other believers did hold to that view or belief. Besides, even if nobody thought about that, Daniel says knowledge shall increase. God's people are ever learning new things aboiut God's Word all the time. It is a book of endless treasure.
The Holy Spirit is God; And the two different persons of the Godhead are mentioned which gives us a clue it is speaking in reference to the different persons of the Godhead. In fact, the very word "head" can be understood and used in a plural form. Like a corporation head or the head of the family. Besides, Jesus has to be one with the Father, and the Holy Ghost. Why? Because they are all one God; And God cannot separate from himself.
1 Timothy 3:16 illustrates that great is the mystery of Godliness which points to the Trinity. The Trinity is a mystery to many. This is what is talking about in Colossians 2:2, 9.
Both Colossians 1 and John 17 draw a parallel between each other in the fact that they both mention how the Son is in the Father and how the Son is a part of the church. The point of Colossians 1 helps us to draw anchor that the connection between the Father and the Son is in view for Colossians 2:9. The church is just a side note letting us know there is a parallel between Colossians 1 and John 17. The church is not the focus of the Godhead mentioned in Colossians 2:9. The Godhead or the Trinity is in view here because Colossians 1 and Colosians 2:2 both hint at it.
Well, the Father and the Holy Ghost can never be fully disconnected from the Son at any point because they are all one God; In fact, if they were separated at any point, then that would mean you would have more than one God within the universe; And that not possible for there is only one God and He is Eternal. Also, 2 Corinthians 5:19 implies that the Father was reconciling the world thru Christ when it says, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;"; And in Hebrews 9:14 implies that Christ offered himself without spot thru the Spirit when it says, "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
The Holy Spirit is God; And the two different persons of the Godhead are mentioned which gives us a clue it is speaking in reference to the different persons of the Godhead. In fact, the very word "head" can be understood and used in a plural form. Like a corporation head or the head of the family. Besides, Jesus has to be one with the Father, and the Holy Ghost. Why? Because they are all one God; And God cannot separate from himself.
1 Timothy 3:16 illustrates that great is the mystery of Godliness which points to the Trinity. The Trinity is a mystery to many. This is what is talking about in Colossians 2:2, 9.
Both Colossians 1 and John 17 draw a parallel between each other in the fact that they both mention how the Son is in the Father and how the Son is a part of the church. The point of Colossians 1 helps us to draw anchor that the connection between the Father and the Son is in view for Colossians 2:9. The church is just a side note letting us know there is a parallel between Colossians 1 and John 17. The church is not the focus of the Godhead mentioned in Colossians 2:9. The Godhead or the Trinity is in view here because Colossians 1 and Colosians 2:2 both hint at it.
Well, the Father and the Holy Ghost can never be fully disconnected from the Son at any point because they are all one God; In fact, if they were separated at any point, then that would mean you would have more than one God within the universe; And that not possible for there is only one God and He is Eternal. Also, 2 Corinthians 5:19 implies that the Father was reconciling the world thru Christ when it says, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;"; And in Hebrews 9:14 implies that Christ offered himself without spot thru the Spirit when it says, "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Well, for one, you did not refute the idea that the devil was getting Eve to question God's Word. The devil still uses this tactic today but you don't seem to believe that it is possible somehow. Like the devil is not out to twist God's Word anymore? That he is not capable of deceiving people with other versions of God's Word? Remember, Genesis 3 says the serpent was more subtle than any other beast in the field. If he is going to deceive all people, he is not going to make it obvious in every case so as to get people to doubt God's Word. The fact that when people look at different translations and they all say something different slightly tells some people that they cannot fully know God's message is 100% true and accurate because all of them say something a little different. Second, I am here to tell them that there is a perfect Word of God in existence for our world language today. I am telling them they can have a final word of authority and know God's Word is trust worthy and true. For God's Word itself claims that it is perfect and that it willl be preserved forever. Now, I am not banning people from reading Modern Translations. No, no. Most certainly not. I never said that. I encourage people to look at Modern Translations so as to update the "Early Modern English" in the KJV. But I am telling them to be on their guard and be skeptical in what they say and make sure that what they are reading lines up with both the KJV and the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. For Modern Translations do eliminate many verses, corrupt various passages (on important points made in the Bible), and add the devil's name wrongfully in Scripture.
Last edited:
But you have no evidence (or at the least have presented none), and the evidence that we do have suggests that people did not inherently read 'Trinity' into 'Godhead'. As long as we're clear on that point.
But it is bizarre to me that you argue "We're learning more things about God's word all the time." on such a critical point of doctrine. Are you actually suggesting that the people of the time the KJV was written would not understand the true meaning of the word 'Godhood', even though the whole point of the KJV was to have a translation from the Greek and Hebrew, rather than Latin, for the common man? You contradict your own view on what it means for God to preserve his word in major languages.
But this has nothing to do with Colossians 2, and you're attempting to use it as a proof that Godhead in Colossians 2:2 must explicitly be referencing specifically the Trinitarian nature of God, rather than simply his divine nature. You're arguing in circles, and cannot make your point from the text you are using. This is not a discussion of whether the God is triune (he clearly, emphatically is), but whether the specific word Godhead is a Trinitarian reference in itself, whether the KJV was intended to mean that by that word, whether 17th century people would read it that way, and whether your comparative criticism of modern translations stands up (i.e. that they are deliberately trying to obscure what the word translated 'Godhead' actually means).
No, the mystery is that God was made manifest in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believe on in the world, taken up in glory. Did you read the verse you quoted? Paul actually TELLS US WHAT THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS IS, because he states it in the confession of v.17. We don't have to speculate, and we don't have to make the text say 'Trinity'. 1 Timothy 3:16 is not a Trinitarian text.
Sorry, you'll have to draw the connection between v2 and v9 more explicitly that that they are in the same chapter. Again, Colossians 2 is not discussing the Trinity explicitly, and does not reference the Spirit at all. The very fact that apparently the church is relevant in one text but not in the other for no reason other than your framework doesn't allow it to be suggest very much you're picking text to suit your argument, rather than picking arguments that suit the texts.
Again - the point of Colossians 2's discussion of the fullness of God in Jesus is not to say that the Father, Son and Spirit all inhabit Christ, that the deity of Christ subsists in the personhood of each of the three. The point Paul is making is that Jesus Christ has the fullness of God, his divine nature, in him bodily, therefore he rules over earthly authorities and rule, and is our head, we being found in him. None of which relies on Godhead being in a uniquely Trinitarian form
You haven't quite answered the question. I'm not discussing whether Jesus was disconnected from the Father and the Spirit. I'm not discussing whether the Spirit was the means by which Christ was offered as a propitiation (which is what 'through' means). I'm asking if you think the Father and the Spirit were crucified. Your argument that Godhead means the Father, Son and Spirit (Godhead=the personhood of the Trinity) dwellt in Christ seems to suggest that the persons of the Father and the Spirit dwelt in Christ and was Christ as the Son dwelt in and was Christ (if you are not suggesting that, the your interpretation of Colossians 2:9 cannot be an explicit reference to the Triune personhood of God).
So, I'll ask again, just so you're clear on what I'm asking. Feel free to give me an indepth response, but your response should either begin or end with a 'yes' or 'no' answer, because it is a yes or no question. It is not a question that should require equivocation. Do you believe the the Father, Son and Spirit all dwelt in and were Jesus Christ, lived in human form as Christ, were crucified as Christ?
But it is bizarre to me that you argue "We're learning more things about God's word all the time." on such a critical point of doctrine. Are you actually suggesting that the people of the time the KJV was written would not understand the true meaning of the word 'Godhood', even though the whole point of the KJV was to have a translation from the Greek and Hebrew, rather than Latin, for the common man? You contradict your own view on what it means for God to preserve his word in major languages.
But this has nothing to do with Colossians 2, and you're attempting to use it as a proof that Godhead in Colossians 2:2 must explicitly be referencing specifically the Trinitarian nature of God, rather than simply his divine nature. You're arguing in circles, and cannot make your point from the text you are using. This is not a discussion of whether the God is triune (he clearly, emphatically is), but whether the specific word Godhead is a Trinitarian reference in itself, whether the KJV was intended to mean that by that word, whether 17th century people would read it that way, and whether your comparative criticism of modern translations stands up (i.e. that they are deliberately trying to obscure what the word translated 'Godhead' actually means).
No, the mystery is that God was made manifest in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believe on in the world, taken up in glory. Did you read the verse you quoted? Paul actually TELLS US WHAT THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS IS, because he states it in the confession of v.17. We don't have to speculate, and we don't have to make the text say 'Trinity'. 1 Timothy 3:16 is not a Trinitarian text.
Sorry, you'll have to draw the connection between v2 and v9 more explicitly that that they are in the same chapter. Again, Colossians 2 is not discussing the Trinity explicitly, and does not reference the Spirit at all. The very fact that apparently the church is relevant in one text but not in the other for no reason other than your framework doesn't allow it to be suggest very much you're picking text to suit your argument, rather than picking arguments that suit the texts.
Again - the point of Colossians 2's discussion of the fullness of God in Jesus is not to say that the Father, Son and Spirit all inhabit Christ, that the deity of Christ subsists in the personhood of each of the three. The point Paul is making is that Jesus Christ has the fullness of God, his divine nature, in him bodily, therefore he rules over earthly authorities and rule, and is our head, we being found in him. None of which relies on Godhead being in a uniquely Trinitarian form
You haven't quite answered the question. I'm not discussing whether Jesus was disconnected from the Father and the Spirit. I'm not discussing whether the Spirit was the means by which Christ was offered as a propitiation (which is what 'through' means). I'm asking if you think the Father and the Spirit were crucified. Your argument that Godhead means the Father, Son and Spirit (Godhead=the personhood of the Trinity) dwellt in Christ seems to suggest that the persons of the Father and the Spirit dwelt in Christ and was Christ as the Son dwelt in and was Christ (if you are not suggesting that, the your interpretation of Colossians 2:9 cannot be an explicit reference to the Triune personhood of God).
So, I'll ask again, just so you're clear on what I'm asking. Feel free to give me an indepth response, but your response should either begin or end with a 'yes' or 'no' answer, because it is a yes or no question. It is not a question that should require equivocation. Do you believe the the Father, Son and Spirit all dwelt in and were Jesus Christ, lived in human form as Christ, were crucified as Christ?
If you're interested, read up on Patripassianism (closely related to Sabellianism). This discussion we're having now was a live one many centuries back, discussed often by the likes of Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Athanasius, and was part of the target of things like the Nicene Creed. Let me know what you think.
To further the discussion - what do you make of passages such as Hebrews 6, John 3 and Galatians 2 that talk of the Son being sent by God, the Son being crucified, the Son being offered up, etc? How do you read those if not only the Son, but the Father and the Spirit were made incarnate?
To further the discussion - what do you make of passages such as Hebrews 6, John 3 and Galatians 2 that talk of the Son being sent by God, the Son being crucified, the Son being offered up, etc? How do you read those if not only the Son, but the Father and the Spirit were made incarnate?
Well, in light of the rest of Scripture, I know that it tells me that the man Christ Jesus was primarily the Logos. For it was the Word that was made flesh and not the Father. At Christ's baptism we hear the Father's voice and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove. But yet, I also know Christ said he and the Father are one; And when asked by His disciples to see the Father, Jesus said they already seen Him. Also, the Scripture records that the Holy Spirit was upon Christ and Jesus had also breathed the Holy Spirit upon his disciples. This suggests that there is a level of indwelling by all persons within the Godhead or the Trinity. Remember John 3? When Jesus said no man has ascended up to Heaven but the Son of Man who is in Heaven? I believe the connection that they are all one God (i.e. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost) suggests that while most of the Father was primarily in Heaven, we also have to realize that there is a connection and indwelling there that is inseparable. When stepping back and looking at the whole of God as .... One God .... one can say that the fulness of the Godhead was in the body of the man Christ Jesus. For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one (1 John 5:7 KJV).
And I agree with most of what you've just said. Yes, I believe the three are of one nature, one God, in three distinct persons (the classic orthodox teaching of the Trinity). But I'm not sure you go far enough. In what sense is the person of the Father (as opposed to his nature or substance) dwelling in the Son? Did only a little bit of Father become crucified on the cross? If he was not, in what sense was the Father dwelling in Christ compared to the Son, who we can be certain was crucified, in human flesh, for our sins.
You see, Trinitarians do not deny the Son and the Father are one. But they do not go as far as to say that the Father literally dwelt with the Son as the Christ (which is what gave rise to the Patripassianist controversies, and in a related sense, the Seballianist ones)
Far better it be, to me, to say what Trinitarians have always said - the Son was incarnate, the Father ordained it, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thee three are one in substance and being, but three in personhood. The persons of the Spirit and the Father did not dwell in and with the Son in the person of Christ in the manner that He did, but because the three are one, they were united by substance and by nature as they always were. The Father did not die, the Spirit did not die, the Son did. The Father was not raised up as a propitiation to God, the Spirit was not raised up a propitiation to God, the Son was.
Can we find agreement so far?
You see, Trinitarians do not deny the Son and the Father are one. But they do not go as far as to say that the Father literally dwelt with the Son as the Christ (which is what gave rise to the Patripassianist controversies, and in a related sense, the Seballianist ones)
Far better it be, to me, to say what Trinitarians have always said - the Son was incarnate, the Father ordained it, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thee three are one in substance and being, but three in personhood. The persons of the Spirit and the Father did not dwell in and with the Son in the person of Christ in the manner that He did, but because the three are one, they were united by substance and by nature as they always were. The Father did not die, the Spirit did not die, the Son did. The Father was not raised up as a propitiation to God, the Spirit was not raised up a propitiation to God, the Son was.
Can we find agreement so far?
Isn't it remarkable that KJV Only people staunchly claim God overrode all possible problems to preserve His word in one single, solitary book not even compiled for a millennium and a half after the cross.... yet He seems, by their reasoning, to lack the power to do a thing to prevent other versions to be produced?
God hasn't made it obvious how to test which translation to use... or if there's a test laying around, I haven't seen it...
there are different copies of Hebrew and Greek around... some will line up with several translations.
good! it sounds like we're looking at some tests here... now, before we can say a verse has been eliminated, we need to know for sure that the verse was there in the first place. We can say a translator corrupted a passage after we know for sure what the text of the passage is supposed to say. We can know if the devil's name is wrongfully added after we have seen the right text with his name not there. It's circular.
there are different copies of Hebrew and Greek around... some will line up with several translations.
good! it sounds like we're looking at some tests here... now, before we can say a verse has been eliminated, we need to know for sure that the verse was there in the first place. We can say a translator corrupted a passage after we know for sure what the text of the passage is supposed to say. We can know if the devil's name is wrongfully added after we have seen the right text with his name not there. It's circular.