-
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!
Christ's deity attacked in the American Standard Version (John 9:38)
- Thread starter Olivencia
- Start date
Is Jesus a creature? I wonder why they added such footnotes.
Last edited:
Is He a living being?
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
John 9:38 AV 1873
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
John 9:38 ASV
And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him.
John 9:38 NASB95
He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
John 9:38 NET
He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
John 9:38 ESV
“I believe, Lord!” he said, and he worshiped Him.
John 9:38 HCSB
He said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped him.
John 9:38 NRSV
It's not the version, it's your notes you dislike.
I don't see the note in my copy of the American Standard Version (1901).
Rob
John 9:38 AV 1873
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
John 9:38 ASV
And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him.
John 9:38 NASB95
He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
John 9:38 NET
He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
John 9:38 ESV
“I believe, Lord!” he said, and he worshiped Him.
John 9:38 HCSB
He said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped him.
John 9:38 NRSV
It's not the version, it's your notes you dislike.
I don't see the note in my copy of the American Standard Version (1901).
Rob
It makes me wonder if the stylistic consultant for the footnotes was Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. :smilewinkgrin:
This is a good verse to show the JW's that All should honor the Son in the same manner they honor the Father. Jesus accepted worship!
Olivencia, I think you are overreacting. I do not believe anyone intended any attack on Christ's deity. If so they did a really lousy job of it.
--> To assert that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is indeed an attack on His deity.
------------------------------------------------------------
Its a linguistic note , not theological. The ASV was big on being very literal.
--> To assert that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is indeed a theological note.
--> To assert that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is indeed an attack on His deity.
------------------------------------------------------------
Its a linguistic note , not theological. The ASV was big on being very literal.
--> To assert that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is indeed a theological note.
:BangHead: Think what you want to then. You wouldn't be the first to attack the ASV.
I am not advocating ASV, but let's be fair for the future reference. Otherwise anyone who look at this discussion may find this as an unilateral accusation in the absence of an advocator for it.
I think the translators wanted to comment οn the original meaning of the word " Προσεκυνησεν" which means " Worship or Bow Down with reverence"
Actually this word was used by LXX, in Genesis 23:7 when Abraham bowed down to the Hitites for the burial of Sarah.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&b=Gen&c=23&v=1&x=54&y=13#conc/7
Therefore in that case, the word itself meant the bowing down to a creature as a respect.
I think this is not the only case where Prosekunsen ( Proskuneo) was used for the human being, and ASV translators knew this usage.
The only thing lacking in that footnotes is that they had to mention " In this passage, it was done to the Messiah as his Savior and therefore it should mean to worship to the Creator" Otherwise, they should have deleted the footnotes.
If we debate with JW, they would point out Proskuneo means the homage to human being too! JW will bring more evidences to support it!
We can decide the usage, considering the full context.
I think the translators wanted to comment οn the original meaning of the word " Προσεκυνησεν" which means " Worship or Bow Down with reverence"
Actually this word was used by LXX, in Genesis 23:7 when Abraham bowed down to the Hitites for the burial of Sarah.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&b=Gen&c=23&v=1&x=54&y=13#conc/7
Therefore in that case, the word itself meant the bowing down to a creature as a respect.
I think this is not the only case where Prosekunsen ( Proskuneo) was used for the human being, and ASV translators knew this usage.
The only thing lacking in that footnotes is that they had to mention " In this passage, it was done to the Messiah as his Savior and therefore it should mean to worship to the Creator" Otherwise, they should have deleted the footnotes.
If we debate with JW, they would point out Proskuneo means the homage to human being too! JW will bring more evidences to support it!
We can decide the usage, considering the full context.
Last edited:
Well the translation is accurate...who cares about the note?
Seriously, this is more about speaking the grammatical and semantical situation than being one to draw a serious theological conclusion.
The context clearly demonstrates this isn't about Christ being an animal or such. If anything when reading this text it demonstrates that this is a moment where people recognized the reality of Christ being God and worshipped Him accordingly. It is a sweet moment.
But hey, if you don't like the version and notes don't use it. I do, however, fail to see if this is a bad translation of the verse.
Seriously, this is more about speaking the grammatical and semantical situation than being one to draw a serious theological conclusion.
The context clearly demonstrates this isn't about Christ being an animal or such. If anything when reading this text it demonstrates that this is a moment where people recognized the reality of Christ being God and worshipped Him accordingly. It is a sweet moment.
But hey, if you don't like the version and notes don't use it. I do, however, fail to see if this is a bad translation of the verse.
Marcia
Active Member
Maybe because the blind man worshipped another man, Jesus, the note uses "creature." IOW, everyone around assumed Jesus was a man, yet he was being worshipped. Jesus is God but he was incarnated as man as well.
That's just a guess. But I do not think the people who wrote the note are denying the deity of Christ. If they thought this, it would come out in other ways in the translation.
That's just a guess. But I do not think the people who wrote the note are denying the deity of Christ. If they thought this, it would come out in other ways in the translation.
Think what you want to then. You wouldn't be the first to attack the ASV.
--> Well go ahead and keep hitting your head against the wall. Maybe it will knock some sense into it. You asserted that it wasn't a theological note. This is wrong. To declare that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is without question a theological note.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I do, however, fail to see if this is a bad translation of the verse.
--> I agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia, sag38 and Tater77:
--> Would you ever refer to Christ as a "creature"?
--> Well go ahead and keep hitting your head against the wall. Maybe it will knock some sense into it. You asserted that it wasn't a theological note. This is wrong. To declare that Christ is a creature and not the Creator is without question a theological note.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I do, however, fail to see if this is a bad translation of the verse.
--> I agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia, sag38 and Tater77:
--> Would you ever refer to Christ as a "creature"?
Last edited by a moderator: