The KJV and The Deity of Jesus Christ

This study only looks at you being wrong. Sorry.

The KJV doesn't. Why you do would be only a matter of suspicious conjecture.

There is a difference between those two expressions and the wordings in the two verses that you have under attack, however, that "difference" is exactly, conclusively zero.

So much for all of this KJV bashing session.

Get used to it.

Nope, they don't. Learn to read or step aside.

Your disturbed lust for disparaging The Holy Bible
is half-baked, insufferable, and unsuitable.

Ahh, brainchild. Earth to brainchild. Come in, brainchild.
Paging child. Dr. Brainchild....

Let's reconstruct your comment this way:

"in 1:1, where the Greek construction and wording is the same, it means"

"only the one Person"

AND IN....?

"the latter two the Greek refers to only the one Person".

BINGO! You got it right after all!

We'll just pretend "nobody fell down". O.K.?

There are a lot more important things to do in life
than wishing you could find anything on God's Green Earth
that is wrong with The Holy Bible, even if you only had to, as a direct act,
bring these two really big deals into being instantaneously out of nothing,
by fiat creation.

It's still not worth it.

It is not worth it...

It'll not be worth it all...

Trust me....

 

Well grammatically you are correct. The KJV appears to separate the two.

The problem is that punctuation use has changed over the past 400 years.

Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase. Vestiges of this attitude are found in a handbook published in London as late as 1880. It was the lexicographers Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler, in The King’s English, published in 1906, who established the current British practice of light punctuation. Punctuation in the United States has followed much the same path as in Britain, but the rules laid down by American authorities have in general been more rigid than the British rules. Britannica​

Those that use the KJV have accustomed themselves archaic grammar.
One wonders if their excessive use of punctuation also occurs with words.

Rob

 

The 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in most KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611.

The 1611 edition of the KJV had a comma after God at Titus 2:13 [the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ]. The first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and 1795 still have a comma after God at Titus 2:13. Scrivener observed: “In regard to weightier matters, the comma put by 1611 after “God” in Titus 2:13 is fitly removed by 1769 modern, that ‘the great God and our Saviour’ may be seen to be joint predicates of the same Divine person” (Authorized Edition, p. 87). The 1743 and 1760 Cambridge editions edited by F. S. Parris had removed the comma at Titus 2:13 before the 1769 Oxford followed them. Concerning Titus 2:13, J. H. Murray maintained that the KJV “makes it as if two persons were spoken of, the Father and the Son; where the Son only, in the original Greek, is mentioned” (Help, p. 64). Concerning the KJV’s rendering at this verse, Gordon Clark observed: “This allows the objector to separate the great God from our Lord Jesus Christ” (Trinity, p. 16).

 

Gill gives an otherwise dead issue a mention of a couple of seconds,
which is all it's worth and to not as some have waited 400 years and then claim
"I believe my flesh, so God's been lying all along!"

"and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"
not two divine persons, only one, are here intended;

"for the word: rendered "appearing", is never used of God the Father, only of the second person; and the propositive article is not set before the word "Saviour", as it would, if two distinct persons were designed;

"and the copulative "and" is exegetical, and may he rendered thus, "and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ";

"who, in the next verse, is said to give himself for the redemption of his people: so that here is a very illustrious proof of the true and proper deity of Christ, who will appear at his second coming; for of that appearance are the, words to be understood, as the great God, in all the glories and perfections of his divine nature; as well as a Saviour, which is mentioned to show that he will appear to the salvation of his people, which he will then put them in the full possession of; and that the brightness of his divine Majesty will not make them afraid: and this appearance will be a glorious one;

"for Christ will come in his own glory, in the glory of his deity, particularly his omniscience and omnipotence will be very conspicuous; and in his glory as Mediator, which will be beheld by all the saints; and in his glory as a Judge, invested with power and authority from his Father,"

"through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"
or "of our God, and Saviour Jesus Christ", as the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read; that is, of Christ Jesus, who is our God and Saviour:

"so that here is a testimony of the deity of Christ, as well as of his character as a Saviour, who is an able and a willing one, a full, complete, suitable, and only Saviour: and the reason why he is so is because he is truly and properly "God"; and why he is so to us, because he is "our" God: wherefore by "righteousness" here, cannot be meant the goodness and mercy of God, as some think, though faith undoubtedly comes through that; nor the faithfulness of God making good his purpose and promise of giving faith to his elect, as others think: but the righteousness of Christ, which is not the righteousness of a creature, but of God; that is wrought out by one that is God, as well as man, and so answerable to all the purposes for which it is brought in..."

 

as an alternate with a comma,

as an alternate with a comma.

A presupposition of "I hate God, therefore" has to brought along to take a comma and call God a liar, when the reading is simple literate English language meaning plainly exactly what it says the same way that the same words would be read and understood in a billion other contexts

 

Unless you determine that a comma means
"the words after this must be of a different subject matter, absolutely without exception", your attempt at using one to say the KJV lied about the Deity of Jesus Christ per the O.P. is a little shallow.

Try something else with your diabolical goal in mind.

There are versions very short on the Deity of Jesus Christ depending on you.

Next question.

 

Heaven or heavens in Genesis 1:1? | Creation Insights

Have We Misunderstood Genesis 1:1?

 

"Conclusion".

"Here is the main take-away. The dependent-clause understanding
of Genesis 1:1 is not grammatically easy; it is difficult and awkward.

"The traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1 is grammatically easy,
and the most basic principle for understanding any language
is to follow the ease of the grammar.

"The ancient translators were just as familiar with the grammatical issues
as we are today, and they followed the ease of the grammar
by rendering the passage in its most normal, traditional sense.

"So the main question should not be,
“Is there something in the Hebrew that the ancient translators missed?”
That answer is clearly, “No.

"The better, more humble question should be,
“Is there something in the Hebrew we have missed?”

"The traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1 is trustworthy.

"In the absolute beginning God did indeed create the heavens
and earth out of nothing, and as the rest of the chapter
and Exodus 20:11 teach, He did it supernaturally
by His word in six literal days."

That's what's called, "Bible".

 

Where is your rulebook on "the unwarranted use of a comma"
and "to show that two Persons are meant"?

Do you speak English?

Where's the rule?

Rulebook? Again? Author? Title? Page number?

Are you saying that there is supposed to be something wrong
with the KJV translation from the Greek?

Why didn't you show that in the O.P.?

Again? An error?

Wrong? According to.....?

An idea I'm your head that you have?

I know you have some ideas about saying something's wrong.

What is it?

Just something "according to SavedByGrace, or what's up?

You said something that you apparently clearly thinks and that's it.

According to what?

Someone that reads things? Or someone that just makes up things?

I'm sure they appreciate you condescending down to share that.

Prove it up.

Here's your mission:

Then, I had to suggest this.

Now we've gone from a comma decimating the Deity of Christ,
to heaven(s), one way or the other, causing The End of The World as we know it.

That's too bad, man.

 

I don't know what you're getting at with these vast generalizations.

1689 BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH IN MODERN ENGLISH.

Chapter 1 – The Holy Scriptures.

"4. The authority of the Holy Scriptures obligates belief in them.

"This authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church
but on God the author alone, who is truth itself.

"Therefore, the Scriptures are to be received because they are the Word of God."

"2 Peter 1:19–21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9"

I thought we were talking about a comma, or an 's'.

So. Your whole point in all this is supposed to be that
The KJV has to be brought down by any means real, or imagined,
for all modern New Age/ NWT leaning versions to have any hope?

Like that essentially every word of the KJV is untrustworthy error and mistakes?

Guess again. As long as Just Guessing is your only Guessing Game.

Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.;

"The issue is not with the language being Hebrew or Greek.

"For example, Isaiah 45:18 says,
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens.”

"And the issue is not whether God created only a heaven or heavens.

"The issue is whether the KJV translators were correct in choosing heaven,
rather than heavens for Genesis 1:1.

"In the beginning, on day one, one heaven was created.

"On day 2, a firmament was created,
and on day 4 the sun, moon, and stars were created.

"With a correct understanding of when the heavens were created,

"there is no contradiction between verses,

"there is no need to debate one heaven in Genesis 1:1,

"there is no need to second guess the KJV translators,

"and there is no need to be concerned
about the Hebrew and Greek languages."

From 37818's Heaven or heavens in Genesis 1:1? | Creation Insights.

 

At its note for 2 Peter 1:1, the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible noted: “Literally, ‘our God and Savior, Jesus Christ,‘ describing one divine person--the same Greek phrase appears in v. 11, but with ‘Lord” in place of ‘God.‘ Christ is Lord and God (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5)“ (p. 1829). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76).

Do KJV-only advocates oppose the same measures and principles being applied to 2 Peter 1:1 as would be applied to 2 Peter 1:11?

 

Hebrews 1:1-2, God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . .

 

Boy, oh boy. If they'd have been here, you would have surely gottem today!