-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
KJVO Claim BOTH Nasb/Niv Deny Deity of Christ!
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Actually in at least one instance the NIV strengthens the deity of Christ.
John 1:18 NIV No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Compared to
John 1:18 KJV No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
That being said, I still prefer my KJV and consider the NIV less than adequate (NIV=Not Inspired Version
)How many times do you want some variation of this to be discussed in this forum? If you want to do a research, yourself, check out this site.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm
He has many articles, documented with scripture comparisons, with regards to modern versions.
Example: Many Modern Versions Degrade the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ
http://brandplucked.webs.com/mat2724justdegrade.htm
Can you make a verse by verse argument as to why he is incorrect in his position?
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
The best way to find out is to read them for yourself. They have tended to target the NASB and the NIV because those translations were two of the better-selling among evangelicals.
How about these concerning the deity?
Phillipians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, [NIV]
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [KJV]
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. [NIV]
Rom. 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [KJV]
Colossians 2:9 (which is easier to understand?)
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, [NIV]
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [KJV]
KJV takes the name of Jesus out of the Bible:
Acts 10:48; KJV: the Lord,
NIV: Jesus Christ
Luke 20:20,Acts 3;16, Acts 13:24 : KJV : his
NIV : Jesus
Matt. 17:24,Matt. 20:29,Luke 10:38 KJV : they
NIV : Jesus and his disciples
Acts 18:25 : KJV : the Lord
NIV : Jesus
Mark 16:19,2 Thess. 2:8 KJV : Lord
NIV : Spirit of Jesus
Acts 13:38,Heb. 3:3 KJV : this man
NIV : Jesus
Mark 3:20,Mark 7:19,John 10:40 KJV [nothing]
NIV : Jesus
Mark 3:20 KJV OMITS Jesus and he and his disciples
20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. [NIV]
20And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. [KJV]
Romans 1:4 KJV OMITS Jesus Christ our Lord
4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. [NIV]
4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead [KJV]
Yep those too...
But overall I prefer my KJV, I studied this issue a lot a year or so ago. No translation is perfect. KJVO is dumb and has no real support. But I grew up with the KJV and prefer the language. It's not hard to understand, just sometimes hard to say out-loud :tongue3:
2 Pet. 1:1, Titus 2:13
That is not a reliable, unbiased source of information.
Some will throw out false accusations against modern versions in order to try to justify a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.
It has not been demonstrated that modern versions degrade the person of the Lord Jesus Christ or deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
There are places where modern versions more clearly and accurately present the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ than the KJV does.
Several early English Bibles and many modern translations clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ."
Likewise, at Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ.
At Romans 9:5, the early English Bibles and many other translations translate the verse clearly to indicate that Christ is "God over all."
At John 8:58, Wesley’s N. T., the 1971 KJII, 1973 NASB, NKJV, MKJV, GLT, and Wuest's translation capitalize "I AM" to make sure the reader knows that Christ was claiming here to be God.
That is not a reliable, unbiased source of information.
Some will throw out false accusations against modern versions in order to try to justify a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.
It has not been demonstrated that modern versions degrade the person of the Lord Jesus Christ or deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
There are places where modern versions more clearly and accurately present the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ than the KJV does.
Several early English Bibles and many modern translations clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ."
Likewise, at Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ.
At Romans 9:5, the early English Bibles and many other translations translate the verse clearly to indicate that Christ is "God over all."
At John 8:58, Wesley’s N. T., the 1971 KJII, 1973 NASB, NKJV, MKJV, GLT, and Wuest's translation capitalize "I AM" to make sure the reader knows that Christ was claiming here to be God.
Show proof that the specific article referenced in my post is a false accusation.
If this work is not reliable, refute his words using "undiased" sources of information, as they apply specifically to the points he has addressed within that article.
If this author were to be talking about problems growing an Acme Seed hybrid variety of carrots, trying to switch the conversation to Acme's Queen Anne's Lace, does little, if anything to invalidate his claims.
the "proof" is that BOTH the nasb/Niv support the deity just as well, perhaps even more so than the KJV does!
can A KJVO supporter point out ANY passages that either deny jesus as Lord/messiah, or else deny any other cardinal truth of the Christian faith?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Point and Counter-point
Oldtimer....for Logos to make the charge that Will Kinney's site is not reliable simply because he is a KJVO advocate is a subjective opinion on his part. It is definitely a case of the "pot calling the kettle black" as the old saying goes. He is setting himself up as the "counter authority". We could just as easily say that the information Logos presents is just as "unreliable" simply because it supports the use of the "Modern Versions" that are based on what many of us believe to be "inferior" underlying texts (CT, W&H,etc.) He calls Bro.Kinney "unreliable" because he disagrees with him. We could say the same about Bro.Logos. Let the games continue.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Oldtimer....for Logos to make the charge that Will Kinney's site is not reliable simply because he is a KJVO advocate is a subjective opinion on his part. It is definitely a case of the "pot calling the kettle black" as the old saying goes. He is setting himself up as the "counter authority". We could just as easily say that the information Logos presents is just as "unreliable" simply because it supports the use of the "Modern Versions" that are based on what many of us believe to be "inferior" underlying texts (CT, W&H,etc.) He calls Bro.Kinney "unreliable" because he disagrees with him. We could say the same about Bro.Logos. Let the games continue.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Weakening the Virgin Birth IS An Attack on Christ's Deity
I don't have a copy of the NASB present (since you mentioned it) but I have been comparing readings between my KJV and a copy of the NIV and the RV. In Luke 2:33 they read as follows:
KJV-
v33 - "Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
NIV-
v33 - "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."
RV-
v33 - "And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him;"
These differences may seem on the surface to be insignificant to some but I contend that where the text of Holy Scripture is involved EVERYTHING is significant. While Joseph would have undoubtedly had the role of a "father" in Jesus life as he was growing up, all we know about Christ from birth to His death at Calvary either "de-emphasizes" that role (Josephs) or is completely silent about it. ONLY Mary has a continued role in the scriptures and in history.
(sidebar.....the Catholics go into over-kill and make way too much of THAT!)
Joseph was NOT the "father" of Jesus Christ and any suggestion that he was can be regarded as a weakening of...or an outright attack upon not only the Virgin Birth of our Lord, but His Deity as well. It can and should be considered a corruption and a "leavening" of the text of Scripture. The KJV correctly and justly identifies Joseph by name as connected to Mary but NOT incorrectly as the "father" of Jesus. This is just one instance where the MV's do injustice to the text of the scriptures. There are many others and the disagreements about them are seemingly endless. The more MV's that are invented...the deeper the confusion gets. The whole thing makes me mentally tired if I devote too much thought to it. I think it is time to go take a nap:laugh:.
Bro.Greg:saint:
I don't have a copy of the NASB present (since you mentioned it) but I have been comparing readings between my KJV and a copy of the NIV and the RV. In Luke 2:33 they read as follows:
KJV-
v33 - "Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
NIV-
v33 - "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."
RV-
v33 - "And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him;"
These differences may seem on the surface to be insignificant to some but I contend that where the text of Holy Scripture is involved EVERYTHING is significant. While Joseph would have undoubtedly had the role of a "father" in Jesus life as he was growing up, all we know about Christ from birth to His death at Calvary either "de-emphasizes" that role (Josephs) or is completely silent about it. ONLY Mary has a continued role in the scriptures and in history.
(sidebar.....the Catholics go into over-kill and make way too much of THAT!)
Joseph was NOT the "father" of Jesus Christ and any suggestion that he was can be regarded as a weakening of...or an outright attack upon not only the Virgin Birth of our Lord, but His Deity as well. It can and should be considered a corruption and a "leavening" of the text of Scripture. The KJV correctly and justly identifies Joseph by name as connected to Mary but NOT incorrectly as the "father" of Jesus. This is just one instance where the MV's do injustice to the text of the scriptures. There are many others and the disagreements about them are seemingly endless. The more MV's that are invented...the deeper the confusion gets. The whole thing makes me mentally tired if I devote too much thought to it. I think it is time to go take a nap:laugh:.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
So What...!
Have your opinion if you wish...we'll have ours too!
Just cause Bro. Kinney and his website were "kicked-off" the BB does not make him wrong. It actually may have given him "bragging rights"! Some regard censorship ( for whatever the reason) as a form of persecution. I'm not trying to make a martyr of him in any sense of the word but I am FOR anybody who can participate in an open discourse and be civil while doing so. If the position of the Baptist Board EVER becomes that it is a heresy for one to be a KJVO then I guess I'll have to either withdraw or get "banned" myself. I don't know why Bro.Kinney was banned...and don't really care. I'm sure that I wouldn't agree with 100% of everything he thinks (or 100% of what ANYBODY thinks for that matter). I'm sure though that he DOES believe in the purity, perfection, and power of God's Word. If he got kicked off here for his stand for the KJV then they ought to ban me as well and anybody else who believes that. I'd also say that in fairness, they ought to ban ANYBODY who believes anything that can be regarded or interpreted as DIVISIVE or controversial such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Charismatics (or Charismaniacs:laugh or anything that might be regarded as a doctrinal extreme. Then they could all gather around a campfire, sing Kume-baa-yaa and sing the praises of Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and Oprah Winfrey.
Okay...I'm done with my rant...crawling back under my rock now!:BangHead:
Bro.Greg:saint:
Have your opinion if you wish...we'll have ours too!
Just cause Bro. Kinney and his website were "kicked-off" the BB does not make him wrong. It actually may have given him "bragging rights"! Some regard censorship ( for whatever the reason) as a form of persecution. I'm not trying to make a martyr of him in any sense of the word but I am FOR anybody who can participate in an open discourse and be civil while doing so. If the position of the Baptist Board EVER becomes that it is a heresy for one to be a KJVO then I guess I'll have to either withdraw or get "banned" myself. I don't know why Bro.Kinney was banned...and don't really care. I'm sure that I wouldn't agree with 100% of everything he thinks (or 100% of what ANYBODY thinks for that matter). I'm sure though that he DOES believe in the purity, perfection, and power of God's Word. If he got kicked off here for his stand for the KJV then they ought to ban me as well and anybody else who believes that. I'd also say that in fairness, they ought to ban ANYBODY who believes anything that can be regarded or interpreted as DIVISIVE or controversial such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Charismatics (or Charismaniacs:laugh
or anything that might be regarded as a doctrinal extreme. Then they could all gather around a campfire, sing Kume-baa-yaa and sing the praises of Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and Oprah Winfrey.Okay...I'm done with my rant...crawling back under my rock now!:BangHead:
Bro.Greg:saint:
So Joseph was not known as being the father of jesus? wasn't he the stepfather so to speak, the human parent of jesus?
How is THAT denying the Virgin Birth at all?
Jesus would have called Joseph what growing up?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
I Never Said.....
What I said was..."Joseph was NOT the "father" of Jesus Christ and any suggestion that he was can be regarded as a weakening of...or an outright attack upon not only the Virgin Birth of our Lord, but His Deity as well".
I never said they DENY anything.
AND...the scriptures NEVER tell us what Jesus may have called Joseph but they DO tell us (in the KJV) that He (Jesus) told them (Mary and Joseph) in Luke 2:49 -
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Also...in vs 43 of that same chapter the KJV reaffirms the phrase "Joseph and his mother" instead of "his father and his mother" by saying:
43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
In fairness and for accuracy let me also acknowledge that in vs 41 of that chapter, God, in the KJV also refers to Mary and Joseph as being "his parents".
Oh yeah...let me add one other thing for clarity...Mary DOES ask Jesus (when they find him in the temple in vs 48b) "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."
Judging by Jesus response to her in vs.49 it is evident (at least to me)that Mary may have still not completely understood the totally Divine nature of the Son she had borne because they (both she and Joseph) both still "marvelled" at the things He was doing and the events surrounding His life even at that young age. Had they truly understood at that point in time that Jesus was "God in the flesh" they might have reacted differently. That's how I see it and that is my opinion but I won't be dogmatic about that.
For the record...let me state again and CLEARLY....I'm NOT saying that the MV's are denying (in-total) anything such as the things we are discussing...(Virgin Birth, Christ's Deity, etc.). I do believe that they do in some and possibly many instances weaken the overall teaching in the Bible of some of these teachings and doctrines. Some of those things have been documented both here and other places many times over the course of these discussions. The examples I stated are just one instance in three translations. The Word of God has been under Satanic attack since the Garden of Eden (and probably since before Creation as well) and that attack continues unabated in our day! I'm done....gotta go get ready for prayer meeting.
Bro.Greg:saint:
What I said was..."Joseph was NOT the "father" of Jesus Christ and any suggestion that he was can be regarded as a weakening of...or an outright attack upon not only the Virgin Birth of our Lord, but His Deity as well".
I never said they DENY anything.
AND...the scriptures NEVER tell us what Jesus may have called Joseph but they DO tell us (in the KJV) that He (Jesus) told them (Mary and Joseph) in Luke 2:49 -
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Also...in vs 43 of that same chapter the KJV reaffirms the phrase "Joseph and his mother" instead of "his father and his mother" by saying:
43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
In fairness and for accuracy let me also acknowledge that in vs 41 of that chapter, God, in the KJV also refers to Mary and Joseph as being "his parents".
Oh yeah...let me add one other thing for clarity...Mary DOES ask Jesus (when they find him in the temple in vs 48b) "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."
Judging by Jesus response to her in vs.49 it is evident (at least to me)that Mary may have still not completely understood the totally Divine nature of the Son she had borne because they (both she and Joseph) both still "marvelled" at the things He was doing and the events surrounding His life even at that young age. Had they truly understood at that point in time that Jesus was "God in the flesh" they might have reacted differently. That's how I see it and that is my opinion but I won't be dogmatic about that.
For the record...let me state again and CLEARLY....I'm NOT saying that the MV's are denying (in-total) anything such as the things we are discussing...(Virgin Birth, Christ's Deity, etc.). I do believe that they do in some and possibly many instances weaken the overall teaching in the Bible of some of these teachings and doctrines. Some of those things have been documented both here and other places many times over the course of these discussions. The examples I stated are just one instance in three translations. The Word of God has been under Satanic attack since the Garden of Eden (and probably since before Creation as well) and that attack continues unabated in our day! I'm done....gotta go get ready for prayer meeting.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeshua1, I'm making the same request of you. Passages have been pointed out.
Address the specifics in the referenced article. Please tell me exactly how he is wrong in each instance presented.
General comments are a dime a dozen, even in these times of inflated prices of food. To use another cliche, it's when the rubber hits the road that we learn whether the vehicle has any traction. How much traction do you have with regards to proof that the referenced article is a false accusation?
.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
And MY Answer is.....
Boy oh boy...that early olde Englishe is fun to read. It is a bit sad that most of these modern genuises that are somehow "graduating" High School these days would'nt have a clue what they are looking at. That said we don't need to lower the language standard to meet them...we need to raise THEM back up to learning at a higher level. Their lowered skills should NOT be the target of Bible translating committees....but I digress...:laugh:
As to the answer you were actually looking for Amy....I will be honest and say I have NO IDEA. Maybe Bro.Wycliffe just had a bad moment and a slip of the pen without considering the implications of his choice of words. In any case all I can do is speculate. Maybe someone more learned than I can shed some underlying TEXTUAL LIGHT on the matter. I don't read Greek or Hebrew...and likely never will. Either way, the issue has been corrected in the KJV in that instance.
I just wanted you to know that we weren't deliberately ignoring you.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Boy oh boy...that early olde Englishe is fun to read. It is a bit sad that most of these modern genuises that are somehow "graduating" High School these days would'nt have a clue what they are looking at. That said we don't need to lower the language standard to meet them...we need to raise THEM back up to learning at a higher level. Their lowered skills should NOT be the target of Bible translating committees....but I digress...:laugh:
As to the answer you were actually looking for Amy....I will be honest and say I have NO IDEA. Maybe Bro.Wycliffe just had a bad moment and a slip of the pen without considering the implications of his choice of words. In any case all I can do is speculate. Maybe someone more learned than I can shed some underlying TEXTUAL LIGHT on the matter. I don't read Greek or Hebrew...and likely never will. Either way, the issue has been corrected in the KJV in that instance.
I just wanted you to know that we weren't deliberately ignoring you.
Bro.Greg:saint: