Which Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rdbseekingafterhim
  • Start date 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.
BeyondET said:
gee no takers in the question I have a thread stating this as well, come on now just for fun this isn't some magical question.
Click to expand...

We probably do not understand what you mean by that question... what "first words"?

If I remember correctly, first should be some proto-Mark, sometimes called "Q source". But it is lost. There were sayings of Jesus that Mark and other synoptic Gospels used.
 
KJV1611 said:
How many versions of the Septuagint were there? And if more than one, did they agree? I don't know anything about it, just asking.
Click to expand...

I don't know either. I do know that some had the "Apocrypha" in them as well. Imgaine the uproar if some translations today had these books in it.

"The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures."

The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God).

Septuagint
 
KJV1611 said:
How many versions of the Septuagint were there? And if more than one, did they agree? I don't know anything about it, just asking.
Click to expand...

you maybe referring to the great uncial codices or four great uncials are the only remaining uncial codices that contain( or originally contained) the entire text of the Greek Bible ( Old and New Testament)
 
trofimus said:
We probably do not understand what you mean by that question... what "first words"?

If I remember correctly, first should be some proto-Mark, sometimes called "Q source". But it is lost. There were sayings of Jesus that Mark and other synoptic Gospels used.
Click to expand...

First are words are written in the NT
 
trofimus said:
Why is that wrong?

And how can you prove KJV is without error as you said earlier? :)
Click to expand...
It's wrong because one and only son means there are no more sons of God besides Jesus. According to other parts of the bible God has many sons. Israel was God's firstborn son. Do you see what I'm talking about?

I don't know that I can prove the KJV is without errors all I can say is I've never seen a bonafide error in the KJV yet. The NIV says Jesus is God's one and only son... that's an error provable by other parts of the bible. I've never seen that in the KJV.
 
KJV1611 said:
It's wrong because one and only son means there are no more sons of God besides Jesus. According to other parts of the bible God has many sons. Israel was God's firstborn son. Do you see what I'm talking about?

I don't know that I can prove the KJV is without errors all I can say is I've never seen a bonafide error in the KJV yet. The NIV says Jesus is God's one and only son... that's an error provable by other parts of the bible. I've never seen that in the KJV.
Click to expand...

What is the meaning of monogenes (oneborn) then?

What is a bonafide error? :) Is it not a little unfair to call NIV 'errors' lies, but in KJV its "bona fide" (in good faith)?

I can show you many factual errors in KJV, but whenever I do that, KJV advocates start to ignore me instead of response.
 
trofimus said:
What is the meaning of monogenes (oneborn) then?

What is a bonafide error? :) Is it not a little unfair to call NIV 'errors' lies, but in KJV its "bona fide" (in good faith)?

I can show you many factual errors in KJV, but whenever I do that, KJV advocates start to ignore me instead of response.
Click to expand...
I don't know what monogenes meant to a Greek speaker 2000 years ago and I don't think anybody else does either. I looked it up online and got this from the New Testament Greek Lexicon. I also saw that Plato used it in pretty much the same manner as defined below.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ECD8A5, colspan: 2"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Definition[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
  1. single of its kind, only
    1. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
    2. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

That definition of monogenes is a lot better than "one and only son". Let's see if we come to an agreement on this NIV error then we can move on to factual errors in the KJV.
 
I just looked up the word to see where it was used in the NT other than the ones we know about. The Greek word "monogenes" was used in 9 places in the N.T. which means "unique, only one of it's kind, a race ( this is the genes part ) ".

It is also used in other places that the KJV does not translate as "begotten" the KJV translates the word just like the NIV does - "only". Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; and Luke 9:38

It simply means "one of a kind" and "unique". Jesus was "unique and one of a kind" who came from the Father into this world. There is none like Him.

We too are sons of God but that is because we are in Him as He is "The" Son of God.

That's my 2 cents on "begotten"...
 
KJV1611 said:
I don't know what monogenes meant to a Greek speaker 2000 years ago and I don't think anybody else does either. I looked it up online and got this from the New Testament Greek Lexicon. I also saw that Plato used it in pretty much the same manner as defined below.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ECD8A5, colspan: 2"]Definition[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]
  1. single of its kind, only
    1. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
    2. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

That definition of monogenes is a lot better than "one and only son". Let's see if we come to an agreement on this NIV error then we can move on to factual errors in the KJV.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I don't agree it's an error. It's simply a different way of getting the same point across..

It was not meant to be a once and for all times declaration that Jesus is the only "begotten" son of God. It was simply a way to refer to him in that instance.

If it was that important, then why did God refer to Jesus as my "beloved son" at the transfiguration, and at His baptism.... why did He not ALWAYS refer to him as the "only begotten" ?
 
KJV1611 said:
I don't know what monogenes meant to a Greek speaker 2000 years ago and I don't think anybody else does either. I looked it up online and got this from the New Testament Greek Lexicon. I also saw that Plato used it in pretty much the same manner as defined below.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ECD8A5, colspan: 2"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Definition[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
  1. single of its kind, only
    1. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
    2. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

That definition of monogenes is a lot better than "one and only son". Let's see if we come to an agreement on this NIV error then we can move on to factual errors in the KJV.
Click to expand...

Well, we both know that Christ is the only Son of God in its own meaning. And that we are also sons of God, but adopted, not by the same nature.

So to say "only begotten" or "one and only" seems more like different ways instead of intentional lie of translators. If you have some factual error, it would be easier to discuss, this one is more about opinions.
 
hornetguy said:
Sorry, but I don't agree it's an error. It's simply a different way of getting the same point across..

It was not meant to be a once and for all times declaration that Jesus is the only "begotten" son of God. It was simply a way to refer to him in that instance.

If it was that important, then why did God refer to Jesus as my "beloved son" at the transfiguration, and at His baptism.... why did He not ALWAYS refer to him as the "only begotten" ?
Click to expand...

At the transfiguration God didn't say this is my one and only beloved son, just beloved son which is fine, it's accurate and is not an error.

One and only son is not just another way of saying only begotten son, it's two completely different statements. And I know what you mean by "it was simply a way to refer to him in that instance". But referring to Jesus as God's one and only son is a mistake, God doesn't make mistakes, translators do but God doesn't.

I'm simply pointing out an error in the NIV. God has multiple sons and we all know that. The NIV says Jesus was God's one and only son which is simply not true.
 
KJV1611 said:
At the transfiguration God didn't say this is my one and only beloved son, just beloved son which is fine, it's accurate and is not an error.

One and only son is not just another way of saying only begotten son, it's two completely different statements. And I know what you mean by "it was simply a way to refer to him in that instance". But referring to Jesus as God's one and only son is a mistake, God doesn't make mistakes, translators do but God doesn't.

I'm simply pointing out an error in the NIV. God has multiple sons and we all know that. The NIV says Jesus was God's one and only son which is simply not true.
Click to expand...


I read everything you have posted on this tired topic and and then some like you wonder why the world thinks Christians are foolish, ignorant, stupid, and intolerant...
 
Maybe we can try some more factual error/lie in NIV? Like in numbers or opposites, not just different way of saying something.
 
trofimus said:
Well, we both know that Christ is the only Son of God in its own meaning. And that we are also sons of God, but adopted, not by the same nature.

So to say "only begotten" or "one and only" seems more like different ways instead of intentional lie of translators. If you have some factual error, it would be easier to discuss, this one is more about opinions.
Click to expand...

Was Adam adopted? Were the angels adopted? I'm sure you would agree that neither were adopted in the sense that we are adopted, but both are called sons of God.

A plain reading of the text without adding opinions or speculations as to what "one and only" really means. Jesus is God's one and only son, is that a factual error? Yes or no lol.
 
eph610 said:
I read everything you have posted on this tired topic and and then some like you wonder why the world thinks Christians are foolish, ignorant, stupid, and intolerant...
Click to expand...
Are you calling me foolish, ignorant, stupid and intolerant lol.
 
KJV1611 said:
Are you calling me foolish, ignorant, stupid and intolerant lol.
Click to expand...


If you were captured by terrorist and they threw you a NASB version of the Bible and it is the only Bible you had for the rest of your life, would you read it and use it, or reject it?
 
Grace777x70 said:
I just looked up the word to see where it was used in the NT other than the ones we know about. The Greek word "monogenes" was used in 9 places in the N.T. which means "unique, only one of it's kind, a race ( this is the genes part ) ".

It is also used in other places that the KJV does not translate as "begotten" the KJV translates the word just like the NIV does - "only". Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; and Luke 9:38

It simply means "one of a kind" and "unique". Jesus was "unique and one of a kind" who came from the Father into this world. There is none like Him.

We too are sons of God but that is because we are in Him as He is "The" Son of God.

That's my 2 cents on "begotten"...
Click to expand...

Luke 7:12 is talking about a mothers one and only son.
Luke 8:42 is talking about his one and only daughter.
Luke 9:38 is talking about the guys one and only son.

All of those examples are truly the "one and only's" of those individuals. But Jesus is not the one and oly son of God. it is true that he's the one and only begotten son of God, in that he most certainly is the one and only.
 
trofimus said:
I dont know of anything... NIV does not declare it is perfect, so I had no reason to look for its errors. Do you have something?
Click to expand...
Did Jesus have an origin as the NIV says?

Micah 5:2New International Version (NIV)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back