Featured King James vs the original Greek

That doesn’t show that “only” the originals are inspired. They we’re inspired of course, but not exclusively. Being we don’t have them, then that means we have not a single shred of the Bible that is inspired still through preservation. Which is ludicrous if you read:
2 Timothy 3:16
Psalm 12:6-7

 

The inspired originals have been perserved by God to us in the Greek and hebrew texts, but they are still not inspired in AND OF THEMSELVES!

 

Really?

 

Good grief, have you read the King James?

I Timothy 3:16. Let’s see how the various translations handle this verse.

NIV- Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body,...

NASV- And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,

NWT- Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh,

KJV- And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,


I John 5:7. I John 5:7 is one of the clearest verses on the Trinity in the entire Bible. Here we see clearly that Jesus and God are one. I John 5:7 reads as follows:

NIV- For there are three that testify:

NASV- And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

NWT- For there are three witness bearers,

KJV- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (emphasis mine)

I beg to differ. There are far more in the Bible too.
Given the Trinity, that means Jesus is also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

How did you miss this?

 

So you have non-inspired words of God in your Bible, got it.
If it’s preserved, and the same words, the words that were originally inspired, when did they stop being inspired?

 

Huh? I am talking about John 1:18!!!

 

Missed the context, apologies.

“...but the only- begotten Son, &c. — John, having spoken of the incarnation, now calls Christ by this name...”

Christ incarnated of God in the flesh is Deity.
Context of 1 John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh...”

 

Believers are confused over these issues. It is bad enough believers disagree on what God said.

 

The reading as found in the ESV, is much stronger, "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known"

In this verse we have "Θεὸν", used for the Father, and "Θεὸς ", for Jesus Christ. Both uses do not take the definite Greek article. Not only does this verse teach the Deity of Jesus Christ, but also His absolute equality to the Father. Further, it also says that there are Two Persons Who are distinct from the other, which is clear from "εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς", lit, "into the bosom of the Father", which cannot mean they are "one Person". This also shows that Jesus Christ did not "generate" from the Father's Being, as some heretically teach. We also have the eternal relationship between the Father and Jesus, as is seen with the use of "ὢν", present participle active, "always in the bosom". All of this theology in this one verse!

 

now what are you on about?

 

I have the word of the Lord to me in English and in the Hebrew and Greek, but none of them is perfect and an exact copy of the Originals, so still authoritative, just not inspired!

 

If God the Holy Spirit "Inspired" Moses, for example, to write, "In the beginning was the heavens and the earth". Then, as these are the Words from the Holy Spirit, surely they must remain "Inspired" even in translations? They cannot become "uninspired", because they have not changed!

 

Yes I get it. But for the record Son is the correct reading. Once I thought the readings evenly divided. But no one would change God to Son. But scribes did change Son to God. Son also has the better witnesses.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but the facts are not with the reading Son

 

I do believe you said the KJB did not have the Deity. So you’re agreeing that it does now, only that the ESV is the stronger reading, correct?

 

I agree because the KJB says “begotten” Son there which refers to Christ the Son of God. Even though Christ is God- when “begotten” is used, it’s the Son.

There’s going to be different opinions and readings because the underlying texts are different.

 

Incorrect

 

And like you do not understand. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Which 99.5+% of the copies of John correctly have. And some mere 5 mss are supposed to be better.

 

Difference between being inspired and being preserved!

 

Since he does not like the CT, would not the MT reading here fit him better?