Jesus - Son or Servant?

Get a grip, Ralph.

If it's to be understood as you say, then the KJV carries the same "contradiction", for it says "and no man is sure of life." Aren't you sure of life? I am. Thus it's not meant to be understood in the way your argument requires - the problem is with your interepretation of the text, not the text itself.

It doesn't give this reader that impression.

The word "also" is not in the NKJV.

Of course not, and the NKJV does nothing to make one arrive at this conclusion.

Good try though.

 

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).

On the other hand, Peter Ruckman claimed: "If the Greek text has made the mistake of writing a word in Acts 4:27 which could be translated 'Servant' or "Child,' the Holy Spirit will resolve the ambiguity with 'thy holy child Jesus,' giving Him the preeminent place as God's Son; not 'servant'" (HANDBOOK OF MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, p. 136).

 

Again, it is beyond me how anyone can seriously use Ruckman as an authority on truth. He has been shown time and time again for what he is. Logos why not let the Scripture speak for itself and quit reading and listening to the unlearned.

Bro Tony

 

One reason for my post was to attempt to get this thread back on its subject.

I did not quote Peter Ruckman as an "authority on truth." However, Ruckman is not unlearned, but he often misuses what he knows. What was interesting was that even Ruckman acknowledged that the Greek word could be translated either "Servant" or "Son." In one sense, Ruckman is more consistent than some KJV-only advocates since he acknowledges that his view depends on a claim of "advanced revelation." He fails to admit that such a claim of advanced revelation in 1611 is unscriptural.

 

Most of the time, the context dictates which rendering of a Greek word with several English meanings is correct. The son-servant thingy, however, isn't quite on the same tack as the Easter-Passover thingy.

 

[non-Baptist post snipped]

[ February 07, 2005, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Well, one thing is for sure, "Dr." Bob's originals reasons for attacking the KJV in Acts 4 and defending modern perversions were show to be false, and when you actually look at the verse he cites, with all the pertinent facts, as I listed, the KJV is totally vindicated. And "Dr." Price's excuse that was qouted was also shown to be quite lame.

First of all pointing out what Dr. Bob pointed out is not attacking the KJV.

Second my modern bible is not a perversion. Now who is attacking here? Stop attacking the Word of the Most High as found in modern version. The NASB that I read has every doctrine and truth found in the KJV(1611-1873).

You are making yourself suspect by making such unfounded claims.

Lastly, why are straw-man tactics used here? Ruckman NEVER has taught the KJV is "advanced revelation" the way others present it. He has used that phrase tongue-in-cheek to simply annoy college professors who think THEY have "advanced revelation" and that THEY are the final authority.

The man that saw a vision of a 10 foot tall black lipped anti-christ does claim that the KJV corrects the Greek.

Why do you try to defend Ruckman by twisting his advanced revelation lies?

When he says this, he tells you that when people correct the KJV with their Vatican manuscript, correct THEIR GREEK TEXT, with the KJV English. I think its funny. When people say "the Greek text says", they ususally mean the Alexandrian texts, which Ruckman holds, as do many others, as corrupt perversions. Therefore correct those forgeries with the English.

First of all how can you believe anything Ruckman says? The man lied about the LXX, he lies about Cain, etc... So many religious liberals try to defend the liberal Ruckman. Are you defending Ruckman?

So is Pascha correct in the Geneva Bible when it is translated Passover or did the KJV's "advanced" revelation of "easter" correct the Greek?

By what authority do you call MV perversion?

Don't dodge the questions.

 

Bob,
In reguards to the original post.I used to lie like a rug while I was smug, too. Then my preacher "at the time" read something out of Joshua chapter 4 from the NKJV:

Josh 4:6that this may be a sign among you when your children ask in time to come, saying, "What do these stones mean to you?"(NKJV)
And it hit me like a ton of bricks, the NKJV was asking for an opinion!!!! The Authorized 1611 KJB was asking for a fact!!!!: Jos 4:6 That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones?
God is not interested in man's opinions!!!
Ro 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Pr 18:2 ¶ A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. Without an absolute authority, you WILL trust yourSELF , and my bible says you must die to self, and:

2Co 1:9 But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves , but in God which raiseth the dead


And God tells me :
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

I don't want your opinion, I want God's words.

 

Wrong. When read in context, both say the same exact thing using slightly different words. How does camel taste?

 

"Mean to you" is asking for an opinion.Truth is not waiting for your OPINION. The person is asking for an opinion, wheather you like it or not, and all the smileys in the world won't chage that!!!!
Your profile says you go to Bible Baptist Church, that's usually the name of KJVO churches. you say your a bible believer. Where can I get a bible that is 100% withuot error?? and what is it called?

 

Nah, you are copying from the AV1769 Oxford version.

Here's the 1611 version:
That this may be a signe among you, that when your children aske their fathers in time to come, saying, What meane you by these stones?

Dr. Bob, don't you just get such a kick out of these hardcore KJVO AV1611's who keep quoting from the WRONG version?

 

Glory2God said:

And it hit me like a ton of bricks, the NKJV was asking for an opinion!!!! The Authorized 1611 KJB was asking for a fact!!!!

And in both cases, immediately following in verse 7, the hearer is instructed to give a particular answer to the question.

So much for "opinion." Context is a wonderful thing.

 

As usual, FACTS are ignored. The answer was not even in question.

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
Job 32:22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

Doctrates will never impress God.

Jas 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
1Pe 5:5 ¶ Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

 

1 Peter 5:5 (KJV1611):
Likewise ye yonger, submit your selues
vnto the elder: yea, all of you bee
subiect one to another, and bee clothed
with humilitie: for God resisteth
the proud, and giueth grace to the humble.

You guys who are smart and can figure out
what God wants you to do can start right
here with me: I'm age 61 (I was born
the first time in Sept 1943, the second time
in April 1952. I personally got a lot
of mileage in my life from "sir" and "mam".

 

Glory2God said:

As usual, FACTS are ignored. The answer was not even in question.

Dodge and weave, G2G. You lamely asserted that NKJV was asking for an opinion, thereby attempting to call its integrity into question.

Well, if the question has a correct answer, it ain't asking for an opinion, and thereby is your lame assertion destroyed.

While this sort of thing may go over well at the KJV-only old boys' clubs, where you can slap each other on the back and convince each other you larned them libruls good, it won't fly in the real world where we value such things as "truth" and "context."

 

If it's to be understood as you say, then the KJV carries the same "contradiction", for it says "and no man is sure of life." Aren't you sure of life? I am. Thus it's not meant to be understood in the way your argument requires - the problem is with your interepretation of the text, not the text itself.

It doesn't give this reader that impression.

The word "also" is not in the NKJV.

Of course not, and the NKJV does nothing to make one arrive at this conclusion.

Good try though. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh,"natters", is that the convulsive and illustrative form of "nothing really matters"?

You might read the nKJV, and then ask you deluded questions and rethink your post.

The nKJV has "God" as performing the action against men,leaving them unsure of life, NOT an attribute of God, huh?

Thus the nKJV is NOT accurate.