John 3:16 and Doctrinal Change

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There has been a lot of discussion as to the question as to whether or not any ‘doctrine’ is altered between versions. I say that there has been and offer a most familiar passage of Scripture to substantiate the point. Take for instance John 3:16. Scripture does not state as the NIV says that one ‘shall not perish, but rather the truth of Scripture, as stated in the KJV, is that one “should not perish.”

Show us that the word ‘shall not’ and the words ‘should not’ are synonymous in meaning, and that it does not matter if there is a difference, for both of them are simply saying the same thing.

 

[Rippon]

There has been a lot of discussion as to the question as to whether or not any ‘doctrine’ is altered between versions. I say that there has been and offer a most familiar passage of Scripture to substantiate the point. Take for instance John 3:16. Scripture does not state as the NIV says that one ‘shall not perish, but rather the truth of Scripture, as stated in the KJV, is that one “should not perish.”

Show us that the word ‘shall not’ and the words ‘should not’ are synonymous in meaning, and that it does not matter if there is a difference, for both of them are simply saying the same thing.

Talk about silliness! Those who believe in Him will not perish or be lost.

The phrase rendered "should not perish" gives a different connotation to today's readers.They may think ;"Should not;so maybe there's a possibility that they will?"Actually when read in context the antiquity of the KJV words will still be understood in context.But you are really straining at minuscule things in order to advance your cause.Don't you have anything more substantial?Is your chamber empty?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: Actually when read in context the antiquity of the KJV words will still be understood

in context.

HP: That is interesting. I see no antiquity in the rendering of this text. It simply says what it says, ‘should not’ not ‘shall not’ perish. Plain, simple and to the point but it does NOT say in the KJV what the NIV tries to tell us it does.

No empty chambers or any chambers at all for that matter. We are not shooting. We are debating. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

in context.

HP: That is interesting. I see no antiquity in the rendering of this text. It simply says what it says, ‘should not’ not ‘shall not’ perish. Plain, simple and to the point but it does NOT say in the KJV what the NIV tries to tell us it does.

No empty chambers or any chambers at all for that matter. We are not shooting. We are debating. :thumbs:

Nevertheless you are misfiring.Your point is so microscopic that I have failed to detect it.

You think the NIV has grievously erred when it says shall not perish.Simply they will not perish is the meaning.The meaning is not:ought not perish which is the equivalent to should not perish from your favorite version.

Move on to something with more of a bite to it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: Simply they will not perish is the meaning.

HP: So your position is that ‘will not’ and or 'shall not' are synonymous in meaning with 'should not?'

 

[Rippon]

HP: So your position is that ‘will not’ and or 'shall not' are synonymous in meaning with 'should not?'

There really are blanks in your barrel!

 

[rsr]

Can't speak for Rippon, but it should be his position.

Should in John 3:16is the conditional form of shall; i.e. the shall is conditioned upon believeth in him. In this usage, it means exactly the same as shall.

Modern usage (especially American usage) more or less dispenses with such distinctions, using should primarily to express probability or expectation. That is not what is in view in John 3:16, and to translate it as should would mislead many, many readers.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rsr: Should in John 3:16is the conditional form of shall; i.e. the shall is conditioned upon believeth in him. In this usage, it means exactly the same as shall.

Modern usage (especially American usage) more or less dispenses with such distinctions, using should primarily to express probability or expectation. That is not what is in view in John 3:16, and to translate it as should would mislead many, many readers.

HP: Who are you trying to kid Rsr? First we are told that there is basically no difference between should and shall, which is in reality simply not the case, neither in the GK nor the English. Then we are told that we need to translate it shall so as not to confuse the reader. Hello!! If there is basically no difference, why would you suspect it would mislead any, let alone "many, many??? :wavey:

This is exactly what I am speaking about. The rewording of the text in order to better suit a particular doctrine. Rsr makes my point precisely. :thumbs:

Rsr clearly demonstrates the very problem with MV and translations. God knows that we need to change the text to fit our dogma, so we simply insert the words we so desire with little or no careful attention to the original languages, lest anyone be confused by the truth, or should I say the truth as seen through ones biased doctrinal filter.

It is no surprise to me that our Lord certainly knew the difference between should and shall as seen when he uses both phrases in the same sentence many times. You have to have a doctrinal agenda not to see the clear distinction.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This brings up an interesting point. Some have boldly stated that they see no differences between the doctrines taught in the KJV and in the MV’s. They see all presenting the same doctrines alike.

Why or better yet ‘how’ would it even be possible to see a difference, given the way they in which they approach the text? They simply read into the text their presuppositions and make them say what they have already determined is the truth. Any words will do because in the end the actual words are immaterial to their agenda. Sad but very true.

 

[Darron Steele]

...It is no surprise to me that our Lord certainly knew the difference between should and shall as seen when he uses both phrases in the same sentence many times. ...

What evidence do you have that any English translation's every word was chosen by the Lord Himself?

Do not quote 2 Timothy 3:16-7 or other such passages, as those passages were written well over 1000 years before the first English translation of the whole Scriptures. Those passages refer to texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek from ancient times.

Without extra-biblical speculation, the words in the KJV and every English translation are just the words chosen by the translator(s). As I am wary of extra-biblical speculation, that is my view.

Also, the person raised a good point about the change in English usage in the last four centuries. The fact is, English of 1604-1611 is not the same as that of the mid-1900's and onward.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DS: Also, the person raised a good point about the change in English usage in the last four centuries. The fact is, English of 1604-1611 is not the same as that of the mid-1900's and onward.

HP: There is simply no way to intelligently say that we do not understand the import of the word ‘shall’ as opposed to ‘should’ any differently now than they did in the 1600’s. There is absolutely no proof or evidence of that whatsoever. I understand why you would like to say that there is, but you are assuming without proof that notion. Even a child understands the distinction between you ‘shall not do’ something and you ‘should not do something.’


It is if though we have run aground trying to change the GK so we have now started on the task of confusing the English. Sorry DS, the only ones that are confused are those trying to make cover for an obvious mistranslation of the GK words in the MV’s such as Rsr and yourself. Try as you wish, but you will not succeed in pulling such wool over an English speaking populace concerning such a clear distinction between ‘should not’ and ‘shall not’….unless of course you simply desire to willingly ignore that which a simple common sense understanding of our language clearly testifies to.

 

[Darron Steele]

...There is simply no way to intelligently say that we do not understand the import of the word ‘shall’ as opposed to ‘should’ any differently now than they did in the 1600’s. ...

Sorry, but once again, you fail to distinguish between matters of fact and matters open to question.

The fact that English has changed since 1611 is an undisputed fact in linguistics and in the academic subject of the history of English.

There are words that in 1604-1611 carried different connotations than they do now. Insisting on otherwise will only make you look like an idiot.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yet more attacks on the Word of God. How shameful.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL:Yet more attacks on the Word of God. How shameful.

HP: Who are ‘you’ trying to kid? I am simply pointing out changes to the well established Word of God, the accepted Word of God for centuries in the Church, and men come along and changed that word for purposes of their own, and you call it shameful for me to stand for the truth as it has been accepted by the Church in the manner it was verbally inspired of God to read? You have it precisely backwards PL. It is the authors of a few aberrant Egyptian manuscripts and the translators of the MV’s that have used those corrupted texts that have changed the Word of God, not I.

 

[Darron Steele]

HP: Who are ‘you’ trying to kid? I am simply pointing out changes to the well established Word of God, the accepted Word of God for centuries in the Church...

Hold on here.

The English-reading church is but a portion of the church. There are portions of the church who are Spanish-reading, Portuguese-reading, German-reading, Italian-reading, French-reading -- and that is just the European languages.

To them, an English translation is not "the accepted Word of God for centuries in the Church." Most of them would insist that their translations of the Bible should be taken every bit as valid. The main exceptions are multi-lingual people who get duped into thinking God values the English-reading Christians more than everyone else. Otherwise, most foreign language readers would recognize any teaching that their translations are less valid as the bigotry it is.

Second, the church has been around for more than a few centuries. Try nearly 2000 years. The Greek New Testament has been around that long -- since the beginning decades of the church. When any translation differs relevantly from that ancient text, the ancient text should take precedence.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Who are ‘you’ trying to kid?

Nobody.

I am simply pointing out changes to the well established Word of God, the accepted Word of God for centuries in the Church,

The KJV was not the accepted Word of God for centuries. As was pointed out there are many other languages, and even in English there have always been other good translations. Secondly, you have not pointed out a change. YOu simply pointed out where two translations use different words. You haven't shown that there is an actual difference, and you have not shown which one should be used by looking at what John actually wrote. I doubt that you can since you likely do not even know how to read what JOhn said. Most people who take dogmatic positions on issues like this can't read Greek. If they could, then they would recognize how silly some of these arguments sound.

and men come along and changed that word for purposes of their own,

You don't know why they changed it so to say that it was "for purposes of their own" is something you simply don't know.

and you call it shameful for me to stand for the truth as it has been accepted by the Church in the manner it was verbally inspired of God to read?

No, I didn't call it shameful for you stand for the truth. You are not doing that. You are attacking the Word of God and planting doubts in people's minds about it. God didn't verbally inspire "shall" or "should." He verbally inspired apoletai, an aorist middle subjunctive, third person singular. Would you please tell us what that means to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about?

You have it precisely backwards PL. It is the authors of a few aberrant Egyptian manuscripts and the translators of the MV’s that have used those corrupted texts that have changed the Word of God, not I.

What do I have wrong? I didn't say you changed the Word of God. I said you attacked it. You apparently don't even read my words very closely, which makes it hard to have a conversation.

 

[m00tpoint]

The difference between the KJV's "should" and the NIV's "shall" is simple. In the Greek, the clause " that whoever believes in him ..." is a final clause, indicating purpose, result, or content. In older English, a result/purpose clause always used the English subjunctive, "should" or "would." In modern English, the subjunctive mood is all but gone; we say "shall" or "will" or "does."

As long as I'm at it, there is a side of John 3:16 that very few English translations get right -- how to understand the word, "so." "God so loved the world" does not mean "love the world so much." The Greek adverb here, outws, followed by a final clause ("... that he ..."), means, "in the following way." In modern English, it's probably best translated, "This is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life."

m00tpoint the Lutheran Interloper