King James vs niv

  • 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.

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
113
63
#41

Are you hungry yet?

Huh?? What are you talking about??

You may want schedule a check up soon, and see if that brain of yours is still functioning properly.
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#42
Huh?? What are you talking about??

You may want schedule a check up soon, and see if that brain of yours is still functioning properly.
Do you even read the KJV?

Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, ... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
113
63
#43
Do you even read the KJV?

Yep, I sure do. I read, study, and believe the King James Holy Bible. It is God's pure and infallible word.


Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, ... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

And that verse of Scripture is doctrinally in the Old Testament.



And here is proof of that:


[SUP]35 [/SUP]But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
[SUP]36 [/SUP]Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
[SUP]37 [/SUP]And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
[SUP]38 [/SUP]But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. - 1 Corinthians 15:35-38 (KJV)


Now let me ask you Praus, was Paul disobeying the Bible when he said what he first said in 1 Corinthians 15:36?
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#44
Yep, I sure do. I read, study, and believe the King James Holy Bible. It is God's pure and infallible word.

And that verse of Scripture is doctrinally in the Old Testament.
And here is proof of that:

[SUP]35 [/SUP]But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
[SUP]36 [/SUP]Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
[SUP]37 [/SUP]And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
[SUP]38 [/SUP]But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. - 1 Corinthians 15:35-38 (KJV)


Now let me ask you Praus, was Paul disobeying the Bible when he said what he first said in 1 Corinthians 15:36?
I thought you were going to offer proof, instead you take different words in the Greek and decide that they're the same--they're not.

μωρε is not the same word as αφρον

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 5:22 εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτου εικη ενοχος εσται τη κρισει ος δ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτου ρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω ος δ αν ειπη μωρε ενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος (TR1894)


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 15:36 αφρον συ ο σπειρεις ου ζωοποιειται εαν μη αποθανη (TR1894)
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
113
63
#45
I thought you were going to offer proof, instead you take different words in the Greek and decide that they're the same--they're not.

μωρε is not the same word as αφρον

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 5:22 εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτου εικη ενοχος εσται τη κρισει ος δ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτου ρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω ος δ αν ειπη μωρε ενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος (TR1894)


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 15:36 αφρον συ ο σπειρεις ου ζωοποιειται εαν μη αποθανη (TR1894)


I did offer proof. Paul was dispensational.


15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15 (King James Bible)



The Gospels up until the crucifixion are doctrinally in the Old Testament.



14 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?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. - Hebrews 9:14-18 (King James Bible)



Here is more proof that the Gospels up until the crucifixion are doctrinally in the Old Testament.




3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. - Matthew 8:3-4 (King James Bible)
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#46
I did offer proof. Paul was dispensational.


15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15 (King James Bible)



The Gospels up until the crucifixion are doctrinally in the Old Testament.



14 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?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. - Hebrews 9:14-18 (King James Bible)



Here is more proof that the Gospels up until the crucifixion are doctrinally in the Old Testament.




3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. - Matthew 8:3-4 (King James Bible)
Dispensationalism is a lie. Not even the authors of the KJV believed that rubbish.

Paul used the KJV just like Jesus used the KJV, they didn't have Scofield Reference Bibles or Darby to listen to on audio casettes. Besides, the Scofield Reference Bible isn't the KJV, and it has Dispensationalism which is added like hoe the NIV adds, and Dispensationalism subtracts the Gospel just how the NIV subtracts the Gospel.

Put down the dispensationalism. ;)
 
Last edited:
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#47
Can someone explain dispensationalism ? From what I have read I think that I believe in it. Maybe I am missing something as I can not imagine what I think it is to be called a lie.
 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#48
The NIV and NASB are the same bibles as the Jehovah Witnesses' NWT


Good morning . Id like to ask all of the readers who use the NIV as their final authority if they consider the Rusellites, better known as the Jehovah's witnesses, a cult, or do you call them your brothers? The reason why I'm asking this question is because I'd like to show the NIV reader who believes JW's are deceived just what he is up against if he tries to preach to them using the NIV. Id also like to show why it is that so many people are calling these deniers of the truth about Jesus 'brothers in Christ.' I shall be able to show both of these points at the same time, for I will prove that there is very little difference between the NIV and the Jehovah Witness' bible. When a JW says 'the bible' he means The New World Translation. According to the 1984 Edition of the New World Translation, in the forward by the New World Bible Translation Committee, June 1, 1984, it describes all of the revisions that they've made over the years. This committee reveals itself to us clearly, when it states, and I quote
"In 1969 the Committee released 'The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, which presented under the Greek text revised by Westcott And Hort (1984 reprint) a literal word for word translation into English"
Now we have here the open admission that the New World Bible Translation Committee used these corrupt texts penned by these two corrupt and unfaithful men. Note also that they say 'a translation of THE Greek Scriptures' as if there were only one set of Greek texts. They certainly wouldn't mention the Textus Receptus to these poor followers of Russell and Rutherford. For if they knew there was another word out there that contradicted their own, they would KNOW BELIEVE and UNDERSTAND as it says in Isaiah 43:10 that Jesus most assuredly DID say WHO HE WAS. John 8:58 says "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. "
The Rusellites have distorted these beautiful and simple words of our Lord into "Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I HAVE BEEN."
People, I hope you heard that. I HAVE BEEN? My GOD is not a HAVE BEEN! When Moses was on the mount before God, and asked Him what to tell the people when they asked who God was, Did God say 'I HAVE BEEN THAT I HAVE BEEN?' NO!!! Did he tell Moses to tell them "I HAVE BEEN HATH SENT THEE'? NO!! The word of God in Exodus 3:14 says And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And by the way, do you think "before Abraham came into existence" is easier to understand than "before Abraham was"?
Anyway, if the I AM in Hebrews 8;58 is changed, the reference to exodus 3:14 is LOST, and anyone reading it that way will not know that Jesus is the I AM in John 8:58 and the SAME I AM that spoke to Moses from the burning bush.
People listen carefully and hear what the New World Translation gives to the people in their version of exodus 3:14! "At this God said to Moses; "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE"! And he added "this is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, 'I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.'"
Oh my!! Isaiah 8:20 of the King James bible is the first verse that comes to mind, for it says "To the Law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The lights are out for sure on this one, people!
Another thing about the new world translation I'd like to point out to you is that it contradicts itself concerning their Jehovah and their Jesus. In Deuteronomy 32:39 of the NWT, it says "see that now I - I am he, And there are no gods together with me. ..." But in John 1:1 of the NWT, it says, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god." Hear the contradiction? are there no gods together with him, or is there a god with him?
Now, NIV reader, or NASB reader, or even Catholic New American Bible readers, this question is for you...what if you were faced with the situation of having to PROVE to any Jehovah's Witness that Jesus Christ is truly God? Lets find out. If you were to quote the following verses to a JW, by the time it was all over you might be asking yourself if YOU aren't a JW and just didn't know it!
In the NWT of Luke 2:33 we read this: "And ITS FATHER and mother continued wondering at the things being spoken about IT." In the NIV of Luke 2:33, we read the following: "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."
And finally, let us hear the word of God, Luke 2:33 "And JOSEPH and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him." (KJV)
Wow folks did you hear that? The NIV and the NWT BOTH say 'father' instead of JOSEPH. Is Joseph Jesus' father? NO!! If he were, Jesus would not be the only BEGOTTEN Son of God. The NWT makes it even worse by calling HIM, Jesus, and "IT". (IT?? Is this for the benefit of those freaks out there who think Jesus is an extra-terrestrial?) Speaking of Begotten, lets look at John 1:18 for a moment.
The NWT of John 1:18 reads: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god which is in the bosom [position] with the father is the one that has explained him."
Let me point out that the 'only begotten god' is with a small 'g', which helps out the Rusellite position that Jesus is just a 'little god'.
Now lets look at the NASB: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [Him.]"
Look at that! The NASB has a begotten God too. Granted, this 'god' gets a capital 'G', but unless I forgot how to count, I see TWO GODS here!!
The NIV changes this ever so slightly, so as to give the illusion it is not in agreement with these. "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, [5] [6] who is at the Father's side, has made him known." See? only God the one and only has seen God. Looks like two gods in the NIV too.
Finally people, let us hear the word of God, John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Amen!
Lets now compare 1Timothy 3:16
The NWT says "Indeed the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great. HE was made manifest in the flesh..." The NIV says "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: HE [6] appeared in a body..."
HE? HE WHO?? Did you know that in the doctrines of the New Age movement, they say that 'Christ' really means 'Christ Consciousness' and that this is something any person can achieve for themselves? They further state that several people managed to have the "Christ consciousness', including Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, and Mohammed. So, for the New Ager, the either of the two modern versions quoted here would be suitable for them, because neither of them make the designation of who HE is...HE could be ANYBODY!! The NIV even further magnifies this new age belief by stating that this undesignated "HE" just APPEARED in a Body! The JW has no problem denying Jesus is God here because there is no designation for HE in the NWT either. Finally, The KJB says "Without Controversy great is the mystery of godliness...GOD was manifest in the flesh..."
Every one of these new versions says "HE" instead of GOD. Is there any doubt about WHO was manifest in the flesh, when one is reading the King James Bible? JESUS was the flesh of God...GOD was manifest in the flesh, not some unnamable "HE" (which the New Agers call the "unknown and unknowable") and certainly not Buddha or Krishna or Confucius like the New Age would have us believe! There are hundreds of other verses where 'Jesus' or 'Lord' or 'Christ' or 'God' has been replaced with 'HE', including Acts 4:24, and Mark 13:6. And, people, don't go looking in the new versions for the Godhead, because he's NOT THERE!!
There are three references to the word 'Godhead' in scripture. Acts 17:29, Col 2:9, and Rom.1:20 The NWT and NIV are IDENTICAL in their changing of the word Godhead into DIVINE BEING. Let me point out that its no surprise that the Rutherford version changes this, as they are deniers of Jesus anyway. But why does the NIV read identically? Why? because people they used the SAME CORRUPT TEXTS!! The same spirit that questioned and changed God's word clear back in the garden is in these modern versions. The same spirit of antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son, dwells in these perverted "bibles"!!
Lets move on now to Ephesians 3:9. There is a key piece of information REMOVED from this verse in the new versions.
The NWT of Eph 3:9 reads:" And should make men see how the sacred secret is administered which has from the indefinite past been hidden in God who created all things."
The NIV reads: Ephesians 3:9 "and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things."
The NASB and the Catholic NAB are also missing the same key piece of information. What information is that? Lets see what the word of God tells us:
The KJB says: Eph 3:9 "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, WHO CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST."
There it is people. 'By Jesus Christ' is the information missing from the new versions. We know from the true word of God, that Christ made all things, and NOTHING was made without him. (John 1:3, KJB)
Another place where the new versions agree with each other, including the NWT, and disagree with the King James Bible is in Philippians 2:6:
The NWT says "who, although he was existing in God's form, he gave no consideration with seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." NIV says "Who being in very nature god, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."
Now lets look at these two carefully. They appear to be different, but they are both making the same statement. The NWT says "gave no consideration...that he should be equal to God"...and the NIV says "did not consider equality...something to be grasped." Both of these version say he did NOT consider himself equal with GOD or even able to 'grasp' or 'seize' such a notion. But listen to the Word of God, people, for it again leaves no doubt about who Jesus said he was.
The King James says, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Jesus did NOT consider it ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL. Its not that he DID NOT CONSIDER being equal with God...but considered it NOT ROBBERY to BE EQUAL with God. So it boils down to, to be, or not to be...that IS the question! And the King James Bible has THE ANSWER!!
So the new version reader who believes the Jehovah's witness is deceived, by now must be able to see that these are in agreement with each other. A clever JW, and they are clever, could use this agreement between bibles as an opportunity to sway someone to Kingdom hall. All he would have to do is say, See? we believe the same thing. Our bibles tell us so!
Finally dear readers, let's look at one more verse. This verse is from the glorious book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Hear how the new versions, including the NWT butcher this one:
The NWT says in Revelation 1:11 "saying, What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven congregations..."
The NIV says "which said, "write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches."
The NASB says "saying, Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches."
But the KJB says " Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches..."
Now, because the Jehovah's witnesses openly and publicly deny Jesus Christ is God, its not a big mystery why they would wrench 'Alpha and Omega' from the scriptures. What about the others? What purpose would they have to hide the fact that Jesus Christ is God? Perhaps it was because the men behind the Greek texts ALSO publicly denied Jesus Christ is God. The translators of the NIV were sodomites, heretics, and obviously staunch ecumenists. This ecumenism has swept the world. How? The modern perversions! So, NIV, NASB and other modern version readers, the next time a JW comes knocking on your door, will you have any other choice but to slam the door in their faces? Did you know that ALL of the verses that are completely OMITTED and wiped out from the NWT are ALSO completely wiped out from the NIV? Verses like Matt 18:11, Luke 17:36, Romans 16:24, 1John 5:7, and many many others? You couldn't preach to them the true doctrines of Christ and try to win them to the truth! The bibles you and they use are from the SAME Greek texts created by the SAME men who say the SAME things against our Lord, our God, Jesus Christ. I sincerely hope you will take up a study between the New world translation and the other modern versions. Add it to your list of bibles in agreement with you and against the King James Bible. If you say the JW's are deceived, maybe even a cult, yo
u are correct. But you will never be able to prove it using the modern bibles.
You probably aren’t even aware of all the “cans” you’ve really opened here. There are just so many things that I would like to address, but in order for me to do so that would require a lot more devotion than what I’m currently willing to put towards such an inane argument. As indicated in my previous post, I am going to respond to this, but I'll be breaking it down a bit by section so that people can read the portions they would like.
 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#49
Now, NIV reader, or NASB reader, or even Catholic New American Bible readers, this question is for you...what if you were faced with the situation of having to PROVE to any Jehovah's Witness that Jesus Christ is truly God? Lets find out. If you were to quote the following verses to a JW, by the time it was all over you might be asking yourself if YOU aren't a JW and just didn't know it!
At this juncture I question if this individual has ever dealt with a Jehovah’s Witness.

Speaking from the countless experiences I’ve had while encountering JW’s (and I tend to deal with these folks on a day-to-day basis) I know of no better advice than this: Abandon the KJV and adopt a translation such as the ESV or NET, where the Deity of Christ is actually a whole lot more evident.

As seen here on the forums, when attempting to defend the Deity of Christ many tend to offer up passages where Divine titles are attributed to Christ, but in the process overlook the remaining (and quite substantial) evidence, such as,


  1. Those passages that discuss Christ’s pneumatological relation to the Holy Spirit (Acts 16.1-7), as well as the relationship between Jesus and Christians in correspondence to YHWH’s relation to the people of Israel.
  2. References where the NT authors apply Septuagint-YHWH texts to Jesus (Hebrews 1.10-12 [Psalm 102.25 LXX]; 1 Peter 2.3 [Psalm 33.9 LXX]; 1 Peter 3.14-15 [Isaiah 8.12-13 LXX]; Romans 10.9-13 [Joel 2.32]; Philippians 2.10 [Isaiah 45.23]).
  3. Christ’s ontological equality with the Father (John 1.1c, Hebrews 1.3, Colossians 2.9, Philippians 2.6).
  4. Various forms of worship given to Christ through doxologies (2 Peter 3.18), hymns (Philippians 2), prayer (John 14.14, “If you ask Me… I will do it”)

Unfortunately, KJV-Only advocates do not have this kind of luxury, rather, when defending this essential they are extremely limited to the passages they can reference. While they may have the ability to utilize some of the arguments listed above, they are forced to utilize highly speculative passages (i.e., 1 Timothy 3.16, 1 John 3.16, Revelation 1.11) that refer to Christ as God in some way in order to advance their position, rather than utilize those we can be absolutely certain of (2 Peter 1.1, Titus 2.13, John 1.18). While there are a number of Septuagint-YHWH texts that are applied to Christ in the KJV, there are even more at our disposal when utilizing translations that correspond to the Nestle-Aland Greek NT or the CNTTS Critical Apparatus (ESV, NET, NASB). And so these translations attest to Christ’s deity more frequently, and in a broader number of ways.
 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#50
There are three references to the word 'Godhead' in scripture. Acts 17:29, Col 2:9, and Rom.1:20 The NWT and NIV are IDENTICAL in their changing of the word Godhead into DIVINE BEING. Let me point out that its no surprise that the Rutherford version changes this, as they are deniers of Jesus anyway. But why does the NIV read identically? Why? because people they used the SAME CORRUPT TEXTS!! The same spirit that questioned and changed God's word clear back in the garden is in these modern versions. The same spirit of antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son, dwells in these perverted "bibles"!!
It’s really quite odd that you would even suggest that there is some kind of correspondence between the two translations based upon the underlying apparatus’ used (this alone is fallacious). You argue that the reason the translation differs from one (KJV, “Godhead”) compared to the other (NIV, “Deity”) is because the verbiage in each of the corresponding Greek apparatus’ differ, and thus, you conclude that the NIV is reflective of a corrupt text. However, the issue here is not a textual issue at all. One cannot even begin to argue that the NIV’s rendition of Colossians 2.9 is reflective of a “corrupt text” without also suggesting that the KJV is reflective of a corrupt text, and the reason for this is really quite simple: The very the same Greek term from which “Godhead” (KJV) is translated is also the very same term from which the NIV translates “Deity.” Here, the Greek NT of the KJV (1550 Stephanus Greek NT) reads precisely the same, word-for-word, as the Greek NT of the NIV (NIV Greek NT).

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς – 1550 Stephanus Greek NT

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς – NIV Greek NT

 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#51
Speaking of Begotten, lets look at John 1:18 for a moment.
The NWT of John 1:18 reads: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god which is in the bosom [position] with the father is the one that has explained him."
Let me point out that the 'only begotten god' is with a small 'g', which helps out the Rusellite position that Jesus is just a 'little god'.
Now lets look at the NASB: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [Him.]"
Look at that! The NASB has a begotten God too. Granted, this 'god' gets a capital 'G', but unless I forgot how to count, I see TWO GODS here!!
The NIV changes this ever so slightly, so as to give the illusion it is not in agreement with these. "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, [5] [6] who is at the Father's side, has made him known." See? only God the one and only has seen God. Looks like two gods in the NIV too.

John 1.18 in no way refers to two Gods any more than does John 1.1.

Given John 1.1 where, both, the Father and the Son are individually referred to as God (“and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”), it simply astounds me that you would suggest John 1.18 cannot also refer to both as God without there being “two Gods.” To play devil’s advocate, I suppose that since the Father is referred to as God in passages throughout the King James NT then obviously Christ cannot also be referred to as God (including 1 Timothy 3.16, and 1 John 3.16) without there being “two Gods.” That is, “unless I forgot how to count.” The argument in itself is complete rubbish.

The reason the NIV reads the way it does is because the primary difficulty in understanding John 1.18 is determining whether μονογενὴς functions as a noun or an adjective in this verse.

Just four verse earlier in John 1.14, μονογενὴς functions as a substantive ("only One," "One and Only"), whereas, in other passages such as John 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9, it functions as an adjective modifying the noun (υἱός, “Son”). On the surface it seems that John 1.18 is most similar to the adjectival usage (John 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9), with the word θεός (“God”) taking the place of υἱός (“Son”). However, in these three clear adjectival uses of μονογενὴς, John uses the article (ὁ μονογενὴς). However, in the substantival use in John 1.14, he does not (nor does he do so in John 1.18).

And it is due to the lack of the article that translations such as the NIV have taken μονογενὴς θεός to function as two substantives in apposition, i.e., "the only One, God,” or “the only One, who is God.”

A couple examples of apposition include,

“Abraham, the believer" (Galatians 3.9)

“did not spare the ancient world, but preserved an eighth, Noah, a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2.5)

Had the apostle wished to use μονογενὴς unambiguously as an adjective, he could have written ὁ θεός ὁ μονογενὴς; or he could have even made the adjectival force far more likely by writing ὁ μονογενὴς θεός.

In his written work, Contra Celsum Book II.71 (refer to Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum; Paul Koetschau, Origenes Werke; and/or M. Marcovich, Origenes Contra Celsum libri VIII), Origen cites John 1.18 in full to refer to Christ as,

μονογενής γε ὢν θεός ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο

However, notice here that Origen utilizes a gloss which helps identify nouns in apposition (ὢν = being, who is, who being). He literally states here,

"...the One and Only, who being (ὢν) God; the One who is in the bosom of the Father; that One has made Him known."

Additionally, the Coptic scribes who brought us the Sahidic New Testament understood John 1.18 in a similar way. In John 1.18, the Copts took μονογενὴς to function as a substantive (which they translate as, "the only Son"), just as they did in 1.14, a passage where υἱός is nowhere present, and where there is no possibility of textual variance, or even a conflated text.

Thus, Coptic scribes render John 1.18 in a similar way as the NIV, and theNRSV: "God, the only Son"
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#52
New Idiot Version. Cannot people understand the fact, that you cannot have an interpretation of the bibkle that does not change the meaning of the text or that is plagiarism. You cannot just change the thusith and death or corn to grain and get a copy rite. At least in the U.S. You have to change the meaning and flow of the text Why would some one do this, easy, money.
The bible is the most sold book in the world so when corporate minds meet they say hmmm, if we could change the bible and put it in a more modern tongue we could make millions and guess what they were right. Because you bought it.
 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#53
New Idiot Version. Cannot people understand the fact, that you cannot have an interpretation of the bibkle that does not change the meaning of the text or that is plagiarism. You cannot just change the thusith and death or corn to grain and get a copy rite. At least in the U.S. You have to change the meaning and flow of the text Why would some one do this, easy, money.
The bible is the most sold book in the world so when corporate minds meet they say hmmm, if we could change the bible and put it in a more modern tongue we could make millions and guess what they were right. Because you bought it.
Have you read anything here? Get a clue. The "Rep Power" is suppose to represent your reputation, not your age. You're 44, and you should be able to deal with arguments like a big boy instead of resulting to insults to those who use the NIV.
 
Last edited:
K

Kerry

Guest
#54
Thats like me taking Huckleberry Finn and saying whats up dawg, well I just shining this fence. Where you rollling to my homie. I can't get a copy rite for that. But you can if its the bible, but only if you change the meaning of the context.
 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#55
Thats like me taking Huckleberry Finn and saying whats up dawg, well I just shining this fence. Where you rollling to my homie. I can't get a copy rite for that. But you can if its the bible, but only if you change the meaning of the context.
Sir, you're out of tune with everything said up to this point. The NIV is not an update to the KJV, it's based off entirely different Greek NT Critical Apparatus, and so you can expect it to read differently.

Of course, even with that said, language does change over time, and those who brought us the New King James will attest to that. The TR was the sole apparatus used in the translation of the NKJV, but since language is always changing, words do not even carry with them the same meanings as they did hundreds of years ago, "dawg."
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#56
Sir, you're out of tune with everything said up to this point. The NIV is not an update to the KJV, it's based off entirely different Greek NT Critical Apparatus, and so you can expect it to read differently.

Of course, even with that said, language does change over time, and those who brought us the New King James will attest to that. The TR was the sole apparatus used in the translation of the NKJV, but since language is always changing, words do not even carry with them the same meanings as they did hundreds of years ago, "dawg."
So how did they obtain a copy rite "dawg"
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#57
I'd have to name it the hood hucles berrys fenn. Rite dawg.
 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#58
So how did they obtain a copy rite "dawg"
Because it's their own translation. What is your point? The NIV is a dynamic equivalence, it's meant to help shed light on passages that may seem difficult to understand. It's suitable for everyone. They didn't change the KJV, they translated from an apparatus not even associated with the KJV, and in doing so have tried to make it understandable to all.
 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#59
I'd have to name it the hood hucles berrys fenn. Rite dawg.
Since you are such a very "special" person, I think that would be a suitable title for you.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#60
Dawg, Read the NIV and NKJV the ASB and all the other B's. Refer it back to KJ and the Strongs and you will find that the KJ is more accurate. But I know that most will not take the time and why I refer to it as the New Idiot Version. Dawg. Compare it to the dead sea scrolls. If you have time.