-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Deity of Christ in the NIV, NASB and the ESV
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
Deity of Jesus Christ is not denied even in MV's.
However, it is quite weakened in MV's.
1 1 Timothy 3:16
MV's state " He appeared in flesh"
KJV God was manifest in flesh.
Deity of Jesus is very clear and powerful, and more than 500 manuscripts support KJV. Only 3 manuscripts state he aappeared in flesh. These are nothing but the local texts.
JW's can never tolerate this verse in KJV. If anyone admit this verse as the part of the genuine Bible, she or he can never deny the deity of Jesus. Therefore the Satan wanted to remove this!, which MV's have followed!
2. Ephesians 3:9
God who created the Heaven and Earth. - MV's
God who created the Heaven and Earth by Jesus Christ - KJV
Creatorship of Jesus is clear in KJV.
More than 99% mss support KJV in this verse.
3. Acts 3:13, 26
His Servant Jesus - MV's
His Son Jesus - KJV
Both are correct grammatically, but Translators should consider the context and KJV is correct here again.
Last edited:
What about the TNIV?
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
:thumbs:
Translators did consider the context, and some translators think that Peter was alluding to or referring to Isaiah 52:13 in his sermon.
James Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).
This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18?
The prophet Isaiah had referred to Christ as the servant of the Lord (Isa. 42:1-4, Isa. 52:13).
The Companion Bible [KJV] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).
Great !
KJV
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
NIV
1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
TNIV
1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
( No improvement made !)
NASB
1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
HCSB
1 Simeon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who have obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
NKJV
1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
TMB ( Third Millennium)
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ:
All are quoted from Crosswalk.com
Last edited:
Yes, Isaiah mentioned Jesus as the Servant, and Jesus worked as a Servant indeed until He was crucified. However, after He was resurrected, He was glorified.
Jesus obeyed the Father completely, Son can make you free, but the servant cannot. ( Jn 8:32-36)
I said, both Son and Servant are possible grammatically, but the Son is much better and correct considering the context.
Evn Isaiah called Him the Mighty God ( 9:6)
His ministry as a Prophet was finished at Getshemene, then was arrested to be a Priest, carrying His own body as a Sacrifice, and bravely mnarched unto Calvary, there He cried the great Victory for us " It is finished !"
His Priesthood was done !
Now the only thing to do is left. He will come again as the King of kings to rule over us.
We must see the whole picture, and KJV is better, more correct than NKJV there.( Acts 3:13, 26, 4:27)
Nope!, 2 Pet 1:1 God and our Savior means Jesus is God and our Savior there!
You will never win over JW by quoting this verse, about the deity of Jesus.
It depends on the interpretation, and therefore KJVO interprets this God and Our Savior is Jesus Christ, because the Almighty God doesn't need any article or pronoun necessarily and Jesus is that Almighty God. There is no 2 God's, but the very God is Jesus. Therefore KJV still states the deity of Jesus.
Even if your interpretation is accepted, JW's can easily deny that the verse is to be read as God and Savior separately.
The key verse in declaring the deity of Jesus is 1 Timothy 3:16.
KJV: God was manifested in flesh
MV's : He appeared in flesh
This is the most powerful verse that declares the deity of Jesus, and JW's never accept it, and MV's changed God to He.
I don't use this passage (among many others) with the JW's.
The use of the pronioun is clear. There is a distinction. If one wants to make up their own grammar rules then that is up to them but it doesn't hold any water with the serious Bible student.
No the JW's and other Unitarians will still argue with you concerning the fact that Christ can be called theos (God/god). I have corresponded with many who have no problem with this. Theos can apply to others besides God as in John 10:34 and 2 Corinthians 4:4. Citing 1 Timothy 3:16 won't hold much sway with the big boys of their organization either.
The use of the pronioun is clear. There is a distinction. If one wants to make up their own grammar rules then that is up to them but it doesn't hold any water with the serious Bible student.
No the JW's and other Unitarians will still argue with you concerning the fact that Christ can be called theos (God/god). I have corresponded with many who have no problem with this. Theos can apply to others besides God as in John 10:34 and 2 Corinthians 4:4. Citing 1 Timothy 3:16 won't hold much sway with the big boys of their organization either.
You don't sound like the one who have preached the Gospel to many types of the people.
1 Timothy 3:16 from KJV is a powerful tool for the unbelievers!
You'd better read the article that I quoted, before you present the further argument.
http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html
Also, try to think about the most popular modern version, NIV omits the big portion of 2 Peter 1:1 itself.
This is like the matter of Motes and Beams!
I have preached to many types of people and have debated preachers from various cults. You speak out of ignorance - just like you did concerning the use of grammar. Educate yourself before making such ridiculous assertions like that.
I never wrote that 1 Timothy 3:16 isn't a powerful tool for unbelievers but what I did write (which you chose to ignore) is that the big boys of these heretical groups have no problem with Christ being called God in this passage. duh
bye
I never wrote that 1 Timothy 3:16 isn't a powerful tool for unbelievers but what I did write (which you chose to ignore) is that the big boys of these heretical groups have no problem with Christ being called God in this passage. duh
bye
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope ! You don't know the great power from the verse 1 Tim 3:16 yet !
This tells us here how you are, what sort of thoughts you have, because you are trying to speak gibberish which the people here do not understand.
You have brought some good thoughts about 2 Pet 1:1, John 14:14, Re: 14:1. But there are some more thoughts conceived by the people here, and you have to respect their ideas, and the points that you brought are very much limited ones.
I don't say that MV's completely ignore the deity of Jesus, but if anyone compared the versions about this issue diligently, he or she can find much more omissions in the Modern Versions, which can hardly be denied.