Have Any Of You Switched?

[37818]

the NIV and CEB both have "Son" in John 1:18.

The issue is the reading "Son" versus the reading ,"God." To use both words is a conflation of the two readings.

What is the spelling error in John 13:2?

P66 has an aleph for an omicron an a for an o. γενομενου. genamenou for genomenou. The CT has γινομενου "during" because of John 13:4 and John 13:26. Referring to the supper which was already ended. Judas was a partaker in the Lord's Supper Luke 22:19-21.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The CT is closer to the original than the TR. But, it's a matter of about 5-10% difference, from what I have read.

The style, for the reading public should be in the language of the people --their vernacular. That was William Tyndale's aim. But it wasn't the aim and intention of the KJV revisers. The common people in 1611 did not speak or write in the high Anglican style.

The text should be dignified, but in the common language of the people. And by that I do not mean "street talk."

You are right, but again let’s remember the individual experience of the people reading these particular bibles... their comfort is important.

 

[George Antonios]

No wonder no two people here can agree on any doctrine perfectly.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

No wonder no two people here can agree on any doctrine perfectly.

Does anyone "agree perfectly" with every single one of your doctrines at your church?

Is it a doctrine that the KJV is the only correct Bible in English?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Snips from two translations of John 1:18 might be the best :

NIrV : the One and Only is God
NLT : the unique One, who is himself God

 

[37818]

Snips from two translations of John 1:18 might be the best :

NIrV : the One and Only is God
NLT : the unique One, who is himself God

Without John 1:18 reading "Son." The concept of eternal Son does not exist in the Bible. He is only the Son of God by way of His incarnation and resurrection from the dead. Can anyone give a simple proof otherwise?

 

[tyndale1946]

Glen is old, it’s died in the wool. He has bugs in his wool older than I am, and I’m 50.

So Willis your bugs are just younger than mine but if the LORD doesn't come soon the worms are going to feast on both our carcasses... Brother Glen

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No wonder no two people here can agree on any doctrine perfectly.

Oh no... I agree with Tyndall and Kyredneck completely on doctrine

 

[Dave G]

You went backwards from a modern revision to an antiquated one. Interesting.

I'm not Glen, but like him I never left, and I've had occasion to compare many modern versions;
I simply cannot find one that satisfies me and is as exacting and faithful to what I believe are God's preserved words in both the Greek and the Hebrew, as the "KJV" is.

Do you ever compare the KJV with other translations? Do you have other versions in your 'abode' Glen?

Of course I cannot speak for Glen, but I've at least 3 differing versions...
An original NIV, an NKJV, and somewhere I think I have a Good News for Modern Man version.

I also have an NIV / KJV interlinear and can see many of the places that the NIV departed from what I hold to be sound translation technique,
and decided in favor of paraphrasing.

I often compare the varying Greek New Testament texts against both each other and the translation choices...
How words are carried over from Greek to English by differing translations.
I've looked carefully at the NASB, the ASV, the ESV, the NRSV, the RSV, the NKJV and several others...

After many years,
I'm still satisfied that the KJV was performed using far more skill and accuracy than any other English Bible to date,
despite the language usages that have changed ( or been abandoned ) over the last 400 years.

 

[Dave G]

Improved accuracy in modern versions being an important consideration.

I guess that depends upon what one considers to be "accurate".

For example, when I compare the Greek word " παιδα" to the English, it is translated in the NKJV as "servant" in Acts of the Apostles 3:13 and Acts of the Apostles 3:26, while in the KJV it is "Son" in both places.
To me, the correct translation ( or best choice among all possible choices ), would be "son"... not "servant", which is actually the Greek word " δοῦλος"...

Sources:
Strong's Greek: 3816. παῖς (pais) -- a child, boy, youth
Greek Concordance: δοῦλος (doulos) -- 35 Occurrences

And yes, I am aware that the KJV translates the word for "son" as "servant" in other places due to immediate context, and admittedly there are better examples that I could use...
such as the overall wording of Philippians 2:6 when comparing the KJV to the ESV.


In other words, I see most of the more modern English Bibles as not being as accurate in their translation as they could have been,
therefore they ( and any others that do not have an overall accuracy as good as the KJV ) do not warrant a switch on my part.

Also, I hold the CT to be far inferior than the TR,
and anything that uses the CT for its translation is automatically discarded by me as even being the Bible.

It may contain God's words, but to me it is not the word of God.
To be that, it would have to have all of God's words for me to live by ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

Passages in which the non-KJV reading may give you an "Ah Hah" moment? You know, a feeling of, "I never thought of it that way before. So that's what it really means."

Speaking for myself,
I've only ever had "aha moments" when I've read the KJV and never when I've read at least anything more modern than it is.
In fact, it does my heart good to read a Geneva Bible or a "Bishop's", and to see how closely they compare with one another, as well as to the AV.

In other words, with me it's not a matter of whether or not antiquated words are potentially causing me to misunderstand the text...
I'm familiar enough with Late Middle English to understand the vast majority of those words and their past usages just fine.
So,
Based on past experience, having a more modern Bible translation in English has never made any difference for me.


May God bless you, sir.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Surely one of your "Ah Ha!" moments would have been discovering what the KJV left out. (And I don't mean intentionally. They didn't have access to manuscripts we we have had for the last 140 years.

I will quote 1 John 3:1 from the NET Bible :

(See what sort of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called God's children ---and indeed we are! For this reason the world does not know us: because it did not know him.

Did you notice the phrase "And indeed we are! other versions have :
And we are!
and that is what we are!
and so we are!

That original phrase missing from the KJV and even the NKJV is glorious. It is uplifting and very encouraging.

If you haven't before come across this before rejoice now and add it to the KJV text. God will bless you.

 

[Dave G]

Without John 1:18 reading "Son." The concept of eternal Son does not exist in the Bible. He is only the Son of God by way of His incarnation and resurrection from the dead. Can anyone give a simple proof otherwise?

" but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," ( Galatians 4:4 ). <---Already His Son when He was sent forth.

" And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? " ( Matthew 8:28-29 ). <--- The demons knew who He was and is.

" concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" ( Romans 1:3-4 ). <----- He was already His Son when He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

" And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." ( 1 John 4:14 ). <--- Again, the Father sends the Son.

" For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." ( John 3:17 ). <--- Yet again, the Father sent His Son into the world.

" But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." ( Hebrews 1:2 ).

" Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." ( 1 John 4:10 ).


According to what I see here, Jesus was already His Son when God the Father sent Him into the world.
Therefore, Jesus existed as His Son before the foundation of the world.

Incidentally,
Are you aware that you are expressing something fairly close to Arianism in your quote above?
That Jesus was God, but not the Son of God before He was sent to do the will of the Father?

I do hope that you re-think what it is that you're expressing and take another look at His words regarding His telling us who He is.

 

[Dave G]

Surely one of your "Ah Ha!" moments would have been discovering what the KJV left out.

I don't believe that it left anything out, and I've never had any reason to suspect the opposite.

They didn't have access to manuscripts we we have had for the last 140 years.

Manuscripts like Siniaticus?
I'm sorry, but to me it should have stayed where they found it... corrections, erasures and all.

As for Vaticanus, I do not trust it to be free of corruption, either, and those are the two Greek codexes / manuscripts most heavily relied upon to perform the vast majority of today's many and varying English translations, as far as I am aware.

That original phrase missing from the KJV and even the NKJV is glorious.

I find that I must politely disagree.
I do not see that phrase in the representative original text, as uplifting as it may be.

Again, I view the TR as the original Greek and not the CT, which is where I see that phrasing has come from.
That said,
I simply cannot add anything to what I have come to know and trust as His words, neither can I subtract anything from them.

To do so would be a great disservice to my Lord and Saviour, who I believe has guided me to all of His words in English...
and if I were born speaking any other language than that one, He would have done the same for me there as well.


I'll make this my last reply in this thread, and wish you well.
Again, may God bless you.

 

[George Antonios]

Does anyone "agree perfectly" with every single one of your doctrines at your church?

Is it a doctrine that the KJV is the only correct Bible in English?

I said "any", brother, not "every".

 

[1689Dave]

Have any of you switched over to another translation as your primary Bible version in the last year or so?

Obviously, those who regard the KJV as the only trustworthy translation are not likely to move on until there's an awakening. However, I would say that the second most resistant group to change over would be the ESVers.

I think that I use more of a variety of translations than the average Joe. I have a bunch of physical copies and I go to BibleGateway as well. No one version does the job for me. I plan on getting the 2020 NASB in a while. I have the 1977 and the 1995 editions. The latter one was a gift from someone. It's a study Bible version. I would not willingly go out an purchase a study Bible. Oops, I have the NET Bible. Does that count as a Study Bible? That's hard to determine. It doesn't conform to the layout of a typical Study Bible.

Do any of you own physical copies of any Roman Catholic Bibles? I have the NJB. I was paging through the updated version of the NJB --- the RNJB recently at a bookstore. It didn't appeal to me. There wasn't much of a change to warrant buying it. Some might consider the REB to be a Roman Catholic translation, but of the 15 churches and Christian groups that were represented by the translators only three were RC's.

I don't expect any to have switched from the NKJV to the CEB. That would be a major shakeup. But perhaps some have gone from the NLT to the CSB for example. I had the MLB which was the updated Berkeley version for years until a South Korean pastor gifted me with the NIV in 1998. I had never owned an NIV before. I spend the better part of a year transferring my notes to the NIV. That's a practice I have dropped with successive Bible translations. I insert my new observations/insights into new Bible purchases.

So, getting back to my main point, who has switched over? Present your story.

I'm not superstitious as far as KJV only. But I use it as my main study bible and quite a few others to help understand obscure passages.

 

[robycop3]

I switched from almost-exclusively the NASV to the NKJV in 1983n or so, but certainly still often use the NASV. I sometimes use the ESV, and, if a person I'm witnessing to wants me to use the KJV or any other version I have, I'll do so, knowint the best Bible version is the one a reader/listener understands the best.

I study older versions from Wycliffe's onward, & will at least give some reading to new translations, but for most purposes, I use the NKJV & NASV.

 

[Salty]

and dont forget
https://www.blueletterbible.org/

 

[37818]

" but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," ( Galatians 4:4 ). <---Already His Son when He was sent forth.

" And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? " ( Matthew 8:28-29 ). <--- The demons knew who He was and is.

" concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" ( Romans 1:3-4 ). <----- He was already His Son when He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

" And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." ( 1 John 4:14 ). <--- Again, the Father sends the Son.

" For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." ( John 3:17 ). <--- Yet again, the Father sent His Son into the world.

" But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." ( Hebrews 1:2 ).

" Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." ( 1 John 4:10 ).


According to what I see here, Jesus was already His Son when God the Father sent Him into the world.
Therefore, Jesus existed as His Son before the foundation of the world.

Incidentally,
Are you aware that you are expressing something fairly close to Arianism in your quote above?
That Jesus was God, but not the Son of God before He was sent to do the will of the Father?

I do hope that you re-think what it is that you're expressing and take another look at His words regarding His telling us who He is.

Galatians 4:4 a case can be argued that the Son was the Son prior to the incarnation being sent. But I also know those who deny the eternal Sonship argue that that incarnation is how He became the Son to be that Son sent. All references to the Son being sent are taken to refer to His incarnation by which He became the Son being sent.
And otherwise OT refences like Provebs 30:4 taken to only be prophetic that He would be the Son. John 1:18 teaches that all appearances of God are the Son. Such as God walking in the garden Genesis 3:8. Not merely the eternal Word. 1 John 5:7, ". . . the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit . . . ." which has more mss than the "God" for "Son" in John 1:18.

Thank you @Dave G for your post.

 

[rlvaughn]

I'm surprised that you have the CSB, since it is relatively new.

I may be an old fogy, but once in awhile I buy something new just to keep up to date. However, in this instance, someone gave the CSB to me.

What edition of the NASB do you have --the 1977 or the 1995?

I would have to look at it to be certain. It is a Ryrie Study Bible, and I feel fairly certain I bought it before 1995.