Jesus - Son or Servant?

For those who are in the same dilemma, I was replying to ScottJ.

But I DID address your "silly" notion.

The difference in the interpretation of "Son" and "Servant" designates the usage, and BTEW, you, a man of your "caliber", fail to receive the full defintion of the Greek, HOW PREPOSTEROUS!!

Would you grant us the entire definition, or will YOU dodge the question?

 

Man! Don't you know better than to use simple sentence structure to help some one who THINKS their mv's are the Word of God?

JK!

Gr8 post my Brother!!

 

Wrong. When read in context, both say the same exact thing using slightly different words. How does camel taste? </font>[/QUOTE]No, actually, TC, the way the nKJV reads,one would devise an answer according to what he thought,not what "these stones" actually mean, or do YOU even understand that?

Maybe you should give us what you THINK, instead of what is FACT?!?

That is EXACTLY what the nKJV suggests, so do the modern interpretors of ancientlanguages,HINT,HINT.

 

Uh, "what does that look like to you?"

verses

"What is that really?"

And YOU suggest "limited" English?Like your "limited" GreeK?

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]Spelling updates a version doesn't make, but defintion changes a perversion doth confusion bake it's cake.

 

No. Is Plain ol' Ralph the convulsive and illustrative form of "Plain and simple, I am an old man who has trouble understanding people, so I like to make veiled insults when someone disagrees with me. Don't confuse me with the facts. My name is Ralph."?

Do you honestly think I didn't read the NKJV before posting???

The KJV says "no man is sure of life". Are you sure of life?

No, your interpretation of the NKJV is not accurate. The problem lies with you, not with the text itself.

 

Hello again,

As I said on another topic, I am new here...and I have enjoyed reading here in the past.

It seems this has gotten way off topic, but let me give you some other thoughts about the actual original post from Dr. Bob...

It has already been mentioned by some that the AV translators were following the lead of the OT in their translating.

It is also worth noting that the translation "Son" in Acts 3:13 is in perfect harmony with other new testament passages when the doctrine that is being represented is considered. Note the context of Acts 3:13-26 has a great deal to do with a resurrected Saviour. Consequently, that fits perfectly with Romans 1:3-4 where we learn that the declaration of his sonship is by the resurrection.

thanks for reading,
MHG