-
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.
To your point, I think it would not be the first time he was associated as a female. Genesis 4:22 "The sister of Tubal-cain was Naaman."
But it is really bothering me by the way I reacted to this earlier, there is no excuse for it and an apology is not enough, so again please accept my regret for posting the Scriptures that I did. Have a blessed weekend my brother!
But it is really bothering me by the way I reacted to this earlier, there is no excuse for it and an apology is not enough, so again please accept my regret for posting the Scriptures that I did. Have a blessed weekend my brother!
I have said at least twice that many reject, deny or overlook there is a celestial heavenly form and an earthly fallen form....Lucifer in heaven as the anointed cherub is SATAN the serpent ON THE EARTH.....deductive reasoning leads to only one conclusion....even though most will deny it or sweep it under the rug!
I personally don’t think that the “sons of God” phrase needs to be taken so literally. “Sons of God” can also simply be referring to any spiritual being who is in relation to the Father. I feel it’s important to remember that Jesus is the only “true” Son of God. “For to which of the angels did He ever say, You are My Son; today I have become Your Father, or again, I will be His Father, and He will be My Son?”…Hebrews 1:5
However, just calling God “Father” implies we are His children. This does not mean, nor prove, similar divinity of the one and only “true” Son though. The fact that it is written “you are gods” in scripture, simply illustrates the fact that we are not merely earthly creatures made of flesh alone…but rather of spirit as well. 1 Corinthians 6:17 reads – “But anyone joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.”
God/Gods/god/gods can mean everything from mighty men, to divine beings, to the Almighty Himself. It depends on a number of factors and context. I think that whether one holds to the authenticity of Enoch or not, probably has a strong influence on their conclusions of who these sons of God were that were spoken of in Genesis 6. As for me, I do not feel certain enough to say with full confidence one way or the other.
However, just calling God “Father” implies we are His children. This does not mean, nor prove, similar divinity of the one and only “true” Son though. The fact that it is written “you are gods” in scripture, simply illustrates the fact that we are not merely earthly creatures made of flesh alone…but rather of spirit as well. 1 Corinthians 6:17 reads – “But anyone joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.”
God/Gods/god/gods can mean everything from mighty men, to divine beings, to the Almighty Himself. It depends on a number of factors and context. I think that whether one holds to the authenticity of Enoch or not, probably has a strong influence on their conclusions of who these sons of God were that were spoken of in Genesis 6. As for me, I do not feel certain enough to say with full confidence one way or the other.
First of all you can call me boy if that floats your boat, but I'll be damned to the deepest, hottest, darkest, jaw clicking parts of hell if I'm going to sit down and take being called a democrat, BACK OFF!!!
I know it's a lot to read, but it you bear with me, you will understand where I'm get the conclusion from, it's in the context. Please give it a read. It would be nice if someone would do the same type of contextual brake down to show fallen angels that way we have something to work with.
Secondly, no one is yelling that would be if I was doing this when writing, BACK OFF!!!, that would be yelling. Believe me I not yelling or in that attitude while writing/typing. What's interesting is it seems as though you have not read my post in how I have come to the conclusion of the genealogy being with one being the sons of God and the other being called men, because I answered all the question there, but it doesn't matter, I'm going to use some of your reasoning to start.
Genesis 6:2, 4 didn't just fall out of the sky, to interrupt the context, with outside chapters for two verses then they are gone, with man suffering the judgement for their wickedness. That the fallen angel synopsis, of the story, they interrupt the story line of the two genealogies in 6:2, then the LORD gives man 120 years to repent 6:3, verse 4, there were Nephilim or evil people on the earth in the days that the two genealogies started marrying and have children. 6:5 the LORD sees that mans sin is great on the earth and that man has evil thoughts all they time. Verse 6 He was sorry He made man and it grieved His heart. Verse 7 He will destroy every living creature that He created, verse 8 the story line of Adam the genealogy that is to carry Eve's Seed (Jesus Luke 3:23-38) with Noah, then in chapter 11 Abram is born to this genealogy to close out the context and start a new one up until 50:26 in Egypt.
What does the old covenant have to do with Genesis, Adams covenant would apply here, not the old covenant. What was Adam's covenant, it is in.
Genesis 1:28 & 2:16-17 “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” and “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
There is no definition of sons of God as of yet, no mention of angels or man, it's undefined at the time. But we need to look at what is happening with Adam's family and stick to the context and it defines who the sons of God are, here's where I should made it more clear when I use the word "genealogy" when speaking of Adam and Cain, it's simply to separate them because they went different ways. Genesis 4:13-14, 16 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” and 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden." Verse 20 Jabel was the father of those that lived in tents and had live stock.
By these verses Cain is not following Adam or that part of his family or genealogy. Notice verse 14 Cain say he will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, then in verse 16 Cain went away or out as the NKJV puts it, out from the presents of the LORD and builds a city called Nod, which means wandering. Verse 20 Jabel was the father of those that lived in tents and had live stock. So Cain left the area around Eden or went outside the area close to Eden, verse 17 tells us about the city and that he had a son, Enoch. All of Cain's genealogy seemed to be living as he was outside of the presence of the LORD and one of his sons committed the same sin that he did, by killing a young man verse 23, with verse 24 saying, "If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, the Lament's is seventy-sevenfold." I find that interesting, because in 3:15 the LORD prophecied that Eve's Seed would crush the devils head and here with what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 18:22 in the parable of the unforgiving servant, 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.”
So Cain's genealogy is following in his footsteps and there is only mention of one female being born to his genealogy in 4:22 "The sister of Tubal-cain was Naaman." it is interesting that she is not called a daughter, but a sister, she is the only female that is not a wife that is mentioned in Cain's genealogy. Now in Adam's we see in Genesis 4:25 that a new son is born to Adam and eve and here's what Eve said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” Why is this important, it's because in Abel here Seed would be carried on, in Abel by his sacrifice it shows that he had a relationship with the LORD or that his heart was towards the LORD by his sacrifice. With verse 4:17 saying that Cain went out east of Eden, that must mean that Adam and his genealogy stayed around Eden, in the presence of the Lord since Cain went east and out of the presence of the Lord.
There were no guide lines that this time on offerings to the LORD it was purely from the heart and Abel's was pleasing to the LORD. So by how Eve named Seth is an indication that he was going to carry the Seed of Eve. Now verse 26 is telling as well, "at that tome people began to call on the name of the LORD" with Cain's line wandering about outside the presence of the LORD it seems that it's referring to Adam and his genealogy or they will follow the covenant that Adam and the LORD have in 1:26 to "be fruitful and multiply". Genesis 5:1-32 shows how they were following that covenant with 9 verse saying that "sons and daughters" were born to that member that was carrying on Adam's genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 that gives the genealogy from Adam to Jesus.
Genesis 5 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters...7 Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters...10 Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters...13 Kenan lived after he fathered Mahalalel 840 years and had other sons and daughters...16 Mahalalel lived after he fathered Jared 830 years and had other sons and daughters...19 Jared lived after he fathered Enoch 800 years and had other sons and daughters...22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters...26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters...30 Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Interesting side note Lamech lived 777 years.
By these 9 verse we can see that Adam's genealogy is following the covenant that Adam had with the LORD and Cain and his genealogy is not, they are wandering out-side the presence of the LORD. In all of the history of Cain's genealogy no mention of a daughter being born to anyone of them, only that Tubal-cain had a sister named Maaman. The story does not end with Genesis 5:32, verse 29 gives the reason for the name Noah being given to him and the last three verses mention Noah by name, with chapter 5 ending with the last three verses mentioning Noah in them and 6:8 showing that the story line continues, with Noah finding favor with the LORD. 6:1 starts with, "Now it came to pass,"when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them," Which men began to multiply on the face of the earth, because Adam's genealogy was multiplying by having sons and daughters born to them. So who else is there on the face of the earth that has no record of daughters being born to them and also that there are not many of them being born? Cain, sorry that is the only genealogy other than Adam's in the context of the story line, with 6:8 confirming that 6:2, 4 are part of the context of the story line. There is no place for angels, they do not fit the story line, it just does not work.
As for where did the giants or nephilim come from it does not say, all it says is. "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward," they were already there, it does not say that they were born to the sons of God and the daughters of men, read what it says after they are mentioned as being on the face of the earth in "those days, and also afterwards,". What days and after is it talking about, "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them." So the giants/Nephilim were already on the face of the earth when the sons of God came into the daughters of men. Who were those children being born to the sons of God and the daughters of men, "Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."
The offspring of the marriages of 6:2, were the mighty men of old, men of renown, not giants/Nephilim they were already on the face of the earth, when the consummation of those marriages took place. You asked how did they come about, the giants. I don't know it does not say. If you read CS1's definition on Nephilim you will see giants is not a very good translation of the word (I see you've read that definition). The Nephilim were evil people/bullies and so on.
Look at how the ISV translates it "The Nephilim were on the earth at that time (and also immediately afterward), when those divine beings were having sexual relations with those human women, who gave birth to children for them. These children became the heroes and legendary figures of ancient times." This sounds kind of like it agrees with your position, that the sons of God were not men, but does not attribute the offspring as the Nephilim. But notice it calls them divine beings, who could be man or angels, all we know is that they call them divine beings, but the Nephilim are not the children born from the marriages of 6:2 and the sexual relations of 6:4.
Back to the context of the storyline, do you see why I come to the conclusion that the sons of God are the sons of Adam and if you go to Luke 3:38 it calls Adam the son of God or of God. As I've mentioned before the son of God are mention as such because I see 4:26 were people began to call on the name of the LORD with the evidence pointing to Adam's genealogy or is in Adam's genealogy, as the ones staying in covenant relationship with the LORD by following Genesis 1:26 and 2:16-17 for that matter, just because they had no excess to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Where Cain and his genealogy were not being fruitful and multiplying until 6:1 when they began to have daughters born to them and they were multiplying, which they did not have or it was not record, the sudden mention of daughters being born to men in the context fit with Cain being call men. If you'll notice that verse 3 when the LORD is saying that He will strive with "man" for 120 years, now the LORD is dealing with both genealogies. As the context of the storyline continues. If you can go through the context of the story line as I have and show how the sons of God are fallen angels, I would love to read it. There is no trick or anything special, it is simply following the context of the story line nothing more nothing less.
That is what no one is doing they come up with lots of different scenarios, but none of them deal with the context of the story line to show how Genesis 6:2, 4 are fallen angels. I say they don't do it because it can't be done in all honesty to come out with fallen angels as the context of the story line. I say that because no one has even made an attempt to try and do it. All they do is chop up what I say, when that is not dealing with the context of the story, it's dealing with the context of my interpretation of the story line.
So my brother have at it, I'm not yelling, so have at it or be like the rest and come up with something that goes outside of the context of the story line to prove your theory.God bless.
I know it's a lot to read, but it you bear with me, you will understand where I'm get the conclusion from, it's in the context. Please give it a read. It would be nice if someone would do the same type of contextual brake down to show fallen angels that way we have something to work with.
Secondly, no one is yelling that would be if I was doing this when writing, BACK OFF!!!, that would be yelling. Believe me I not yelling or in that attitude while writing/typing. What's interesting is it seems as though you have not read my post in how I have come to the conclusion of the genealogy being with one being the sons of God and the other being called men, because I answered all the question there, but it doesn't matter, I'm going to use some of your reasoning to start.
Genesis 6:2, 4 didn't just fall out of the sky, to interrupt the context, with outside chapters for two verses then they are gone, with man suffering the judgement for their wickedness. That the fallen angel synopsis, of the story, they interrupt the story line of the two genealogies in 6:2, then the LORD gives man 120 years to repent 6:3, verse 4, there were Nephilim or evil people on the earth in the days that the two genealogies started marrying and have children. 6:5 the LORD sees that mans sin is great on the earth and that man has evil thoughts all they time. Verse 6 He was sorry He made man and it grieved His heart. Verse 7 He will destroy every living creature that He created, verse 8 the story line of Adam the genealogy that is to carry Eve's Seed (Jesus Luke 3:23-38) with Noah, then in chapter 11 Abram is born to this genealogy to close out the context and start a new one up until 50:26 in Egypt.
What does the old covenant have to do with Genesis, Adams covenant would apply here, not the old covenant. What was Adam's covenant, it is in.
Genesis 1:28 & 2:16-17 “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” and “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
There is no definition of sons of God as of yet, no mention of angels or man, it's undefined at the time. But we need to look at what is happening with Adam's family and stick to the context and it defines who the sons of God are, here's where I should made it more clear when I use the word "genealogy" when speaking of Adam and Cain, it's simply to separate them because they went different ways. Genesis 4:13-14, 16 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” and 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden." Verse 20 Jabel was the father of those that lived in tents and had live stock.
By these verses Cain is not following Adam or that part of his family or genealogy. Notice verse 14 Cain say he will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, then in verse 16 Cain went away or out as the NKJV puts it, out from the presents of the LORD and builds a city called Nod, which means wandering. Verse 20 Jabel was the father of those that lived in tents and had live stock. So Cain left the area around Eden or went outside the area close to Eden, verse 17 tells us about the city and that he had a son, Enoch. All of Cain's genealogy seemed to be living as he was outside of the presence of the LORD and one of his sons committed the same sin that he did, by killing a young man verse 23, with verse 24 saying, "If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, the Lament's is seventy-sevenfold." I find that interesting, because in 3:15 the LORD prophecied that Eve's Seed would crush the devils head and here with what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 18:22 in the parable of the unforgiving servant, 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.”
So Cain's genealogy is following in his footsteps and there is only mention of one female being born to his genealogy in 4:22 "The sister of Tubal-cain was Naaman." it is interesting that she is not called a daughter, but a sister, she is the only female that is not a wife that is mentioned in Cain's genealogy. Now in Adam's we see in Genesis 4:25 that a new son is born to Adam and eve and here's what Eve said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” Why is this important, it's because in Abel here Seed would be carried on, in Abel by his sacrifice it shows that he had a relationship with the LORD or that his heart was towards the LORD by his sacrifice. With verse 4:17 saying that Cain went out east of Eden, that must mean that Adam and his genealogy stayed around Eden, in the presence of the Lord since Cain went east and out of the presence of the Lord.
There were no guide lines that this time on offerings to the LORD it was purely from the heart and Abel's was pleasing to the LORD. So by how Eve named Seth is an indication that he was going to carry the Seed of Eve. Now verse 26 is telling as well, "at that tome people began to call on the name of the LORD" with Cain's line wandering about outside the presence of the LORD it seems that it's referring to Adam and his genealogy or they will follow the covenant that Adam and the LORD have in 1:26 to "be fruitful and multiply". Genesis 5:1-32 shows how they were following that covenant with 9 verse saying that "sons and daughters" were born to that member that was carrying on Adam's genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 that gives the genealogy from Adam to Jesus.
Genesis 5 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters...7 Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters...10 Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters...13 Kenan lived after he fathered Mahalalel 840 years and had other sons and daughters...16 Mahalalel lived after he fathered Jared 830 years and had other sons and daughters...19 Jared lived after he fathered Enoch 800 years and had other sons and daughters...22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters...26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters...30 Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Interesting side note Lamech lived 777 years.
By these 9 verse we can see that Adam's genealogy is following the covenant that Adam had with the LORD and Cain and his genealogy is not, they are wandering out-side the presence of the LORD. In all of the history of Cain's genealogy no mention of a daughter being born to anyone of them, only that Tubal-cain had a sister named Maaman. The story does not end with Genesis 5:32, verse 29 gives the reason for the name Noah being given to him and the last three verses mention Noah by name, with chapter 5 ending with the last three verses mentioning Noah in them and 6:8 showing that the story line continues, with Noah finding favor with the LORD. 6:1 starts with, "Now it came to pass,"when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them," Which men began to multiply on the face of the earth, because Adam's genealogy was multiplying by having sons and daughters born to them. So who else is there on the face of the earth that has no record of daughters being born to them and also that there are not many of them being born? Cain, sorry that is the only genealogy other than Adam's in the context of the story line, with 6:8 confirming that 6:2, 4 are part of the context of the story line. There is no place for angels, they do not fit the story line, it just does not work.
As for where did the giants or nephilim come from it does not say, all it says is. "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward," they were already there, it does not say that they were born to the sons of God and the daughters of men, read what it says after they are mentioned as being on the face of the earth in "those days, and also afterwards,". What days and after is it talking about, "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them." So the giants/Nephilim were already on the face of the earth when the sons of God came into the daughters of men. Who were those children being born to the sons of God and the daughters of men, "Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."
The offspring of the marriages of 6:2, were the mighty men of old, men of renown, not giants/Nephilim they were already on the face of the earth, when the consummation of those marriages took place. You asked how did they come about, the giants. I don't know it does not say. If you read CS1's definition on Nephilim you will see giants is not a very good translation of the word (I see you've read that definition). The Nephilim were evil people/bullies and so on.
Look at how the ISV translates it "The Nephilim were on the earth at that time (and also immediately afterward), when those divine beings were having sexual relations with those human women, who gave birth to children for them. These children became the heroes and legendary figures of ancient times." This sounds kind of like it agrees with your position, that the sons of God were not men, but does not attribute the offspring as the Nephilim. But notice it calls them divine beings, who could be man or angels, all we know is that they call them divine beings, but the Nephilim are not the children born from the marriages of 6:2 and the sexual relations of 6:4.
Back to the context of the storyline, do you see why I come to the conclusion that the sons of God are the sons of Adam and if you go to Luke 3:38 it calls Adam the son of God or of God. As I've mentioned before the son of God are mention as such because I see 4:26 were people began to call on the name of the LORD with the evidence pointing to Adam's genealogy or is in Adam's genealogy, as the ones staying in covenant relationship with the LORD by following Genesis 1:26 and 2:16-17 for that matter, just because they had no excess to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Where Cain and his genealogy were not being fruitful and multiplying until 6:1 when they began to have daughters born to them and they were multiplying, which they did not have or it was not record, the sudden mention of daughters being born to men in the context fit with Cain being call men. If you'll notice that verse 3 when the LORD is saying that He will strive with "man" for 120 years, now the LORD is dealing with both genealogies. As the context of the storyline continues. If you can go through the context of the story line as I have and show how the sons of God are fallen angels, I would love to read it. There is no trick or anything special, it is simply following the context of the story line nothing more nothing less.
That is what no one is doing they come up with lots of different scenarios, but none of them deal with the context of the story line to show how Genesis 6:2, 4 are fallen angels. I say they don't do it because it can't be done in all honesty to come out with fallen angels as the context of the story line. I say that because no one has even made an attempt to try and do it. All they do is chop up what I say, when that is not dealing with the context of the story, it's dealing with the context of my interpretation of the story line.
So my brother have at it, I'm not yelling, so have at it or be like the rest and come up with something that goes outside of the context of the story line to prove your theory.God bless.
Feeling better now? 
Hugs on Ya.
Hugs on Ya.
Have you ever seen that picture it is a cartoon, where there a bunch of Christians inside the castle walls and the world is throwing rocks in on the Christians and instead of throwing them back out. They are picking up the rocks and throwing them at other Christians? This place remind me of the cartoon picture. I think I am going to look for that and see if I can find it.
It must be my age, went through lots of pinterest and no luck.
Flesh also, as in man is flesh too or indeed or as well, as the NKJV, no reference to anyone else. ESV "Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
NKJV "And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
The KJV uses word that do not have the same meaning as they did in the day. KJV is wooden in it's translation. For me the ESV or NKJV are the two I like to use, I know some say that the ESV, NASB or RSV are not the same as the KJV and they are not. I seen one of the posts against the ESV because of Romans 12:16
ESV "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.Never be wise in your own sight."
NKJV "Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion."
What are they referring to John 13:34 ESV "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."
NKJV "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another."
There is one difference, one uses a colon after another and the other uses a semi-colon. The immediate context might be different but they are saying the something, once you look at the overall context.
When I first came to the Lord I was a KJV only, what I did not like was that all the verses were separate and I could see how people could take one verse and think that it stood alone, when it does not it in a context. So I started follow the marking for the paragraphs, then the words that did not make sense so I switched to the NKJV. Which already had it in paragraphs and the words were up to date. I found myself to be more legalistic when I was a KJV only type. If it was good enough for the apostle Paul it was good enough for me.
Then I started reading the word with out reading the italicized words, then I found that the ESV pretty much does away with them, so I whited to it and love it. When you know the overall context it does not change and neither does the immediate if you have the overall context in mind.
NKJV "And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
The KJV uses word that do not have the same meaning as they did in the day. KJV is wooden in it's translation. For me the ESV or NKJV are the two I like to use, I know some say that the ESV, NASB or RSV are not the same as the KJV and they are not. I seen one of the posts against the ESV because of Romans 12:16
ESV "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.Never be wise in your own sight."
NKJV "Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion."
What are they referring to John 13:34 ESV "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."
NKJV "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another."
There is one difference, one uses a colon after another and the other uses a semi-colon. The immediate context might be different but they are saying the something, once you look at the overall context.
When I first came to the Lord I was a KJV only, what I did not like was that all the verses were separate and I could see how people could take one verse and think that it stood alone, when it does not it in a context. So I started follow the marking for the paragraphs, then the words that did not make sense so I switched to the NKJV. Which already had it in paragraphs and the words were up to date. I found myself to be more legalistic when I was a KJV only type. If it was good enough for the apostle Paul it was good enough for me.
Then I started reading the word with out reading the italicized words, then I found that the ESV pretty much does away with them, so I whited to it and love it. When you know the overall context it does not change and neither does the immediate if you have the overall context in mind.