KJVO Claim BOTH Nasb/Niv Deny Deity of Christ!

[Deacon]

It seems my post has been ignored.

I'll repeat it.

Wycliffe Bible
Lu*2:33 And his fadir and his modir weren wondrynge on these thingis, that weren seid of hym. (Wyc)

This is NOT a modern version. So did Wycliffe weaken the deity of Christ?

Amy, the Wycliffe bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate which has its 'Only' tradition.

It was the 'common bible' for over a thousand years.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

Amy, the Wycliffe bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate which has its 'Only' tradition.

It was the 'common bible' for over a thousand years.

Rob

Why wouldn't the "truth" of the KJVO position apply equally well towards the Vulgate, or the Geneva Bible?

 

[Logos1560]

Luke 2:33

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.

This supposed injustice was found in many of the Greek manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus was based, was found in some of the printed editions of the Textus Receptus as edited by Erasmus and others, and was found in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.

Perhaps KJV-only advocates are unaware of the fact that several of the early Bibles on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles or pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'.

The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33. Thus, Erasmus's Greek edition of the TR apparently had "father" at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].

Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth? Would they imply that the KJV is a revision of earlier Bibles that were "perversions?" In their attempts to show or prove corruption in their other line or stream of Bibles, have KJV-only authors in effect shown corruption in their own good line or stream?

Would KJV-only advocates claim that Mary denied the virgin birth of Christ when she called Joseph his father (Luke 2:48). ?

Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV denied the virgin birth when it referred to Jesus as "the son of Joseph" at John 1:45 and John 6:42?

 

[Logos1560]

2 Peter 1:1

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." James White maintained that this is the proper translation of the Greek according to the Granville Sharp's rule (King James Only Controversy, p. 268). Granville Sharp (1735-1813) cited 2 Peter 1:1 as his first example “of sentences which fall under the first rule, and are improperly rendered in the English version [KJV]“ (Remarks, p. 20). James D. Price noted that “the Greek grammatical construction here identifies Jesus Christ as God and Savior” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). Concerning this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: “Though it is not quite as evident in English, in the Received Text, the phrase literally reads, ‘the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ’” (p. 228). Kenneth Wuest asserted: “The expression, ‘God and our Saviour’ is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (In These Last Days, p. 17). John Ankerberg and John Weldon maintained that “Greek scholars Dana and Mantley, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, confirm the truth of Sharp’s rule, and then explain: ‘Second Peter 1:1 … means that Jesus is our God and Savior” (Facts On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24).


John Dagg indicated that the rendering in our common English version at 2 Peter 1:1 should be emended to “the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) wrote: “According to the original, of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 525). Thomas Goodwin asserted that “Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” and that “it is clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283). Goodwin contended that “as by God and the Father is meant God the Father so by God and our Saviour is meant Jesus Christ” (p. 283). In his commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Gordon Clark translated the phrase as “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (New Heavens, New Earth, p. 170). Clark noted: “Other references to ‘our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ do not diminish the deity asserted here in 1:1” (p. 171). At his verse, the MacArthur Study Bible stated concerning “our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” The Greek construction has only one article before this phrase, making the entire phrase refer to the same person” (p. 1952). At this phrase at this verse, The Henry Morris Study Bible stated: “This expression could better be rendered as ‘our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 1947). In his commentary on 2 Peter & Jude, John MacArthur noted: “The Greek construction places just one article before the phrase God and Savior, which makes both terms refer to the same person. Thus Peter identifies Jesus, not just as Savior, but as God (cf. 1:11; 2:20, 3:2, 18; Isa. 43:3, 11:45, 21; 60:16; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8), the author and agent of salvation. The apostle made the same relation clear in his Pentecost sermon, in which he took the Old Testament truth of God and applied it to Jesus (Acts 2:21-36; cf. Matt. 1:21; Acts 4:12; 5:31)” (p. 23).

At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note indicating the accurate translation and meaning of the Greek. An earlier KJV edition printed in London in 1711 had the same note and a cross reference to Titus 2:13. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English translators and the editors of some standard KJV editions.


Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611. In his commentary on several books of the Bible including 2 Peter, Thomas Holland attempted to defend the rendering in the KJV as he asserted: “While the phrase our God and Savior Jesus Christ is a clear testimony to Christ’s deity, the phrase God and our Savior Jesus Christ likewise has reference to God and Savior being the same person, namely Jesus Christ” (p. 289).


James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76).

 

[Yeshua1]

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." James White maintained that this is the proper translation of the Greek according to the Granville Sharp's rule (King James Only Controversy, p. 268). Granville Sharp (1735-1813) cited 2 Peter 1:1 as his first example “of sentences which fall under the first rule, and are improperly rendered in the English version [KJV]“ (Remarks, p. 20). James D. Price noted that “the Greek grammatical construction here identifies Jesus Christ as God and Savior” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). Concerning this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: “Though it is not quite as evident in English, in the Received Text, the phrase literally reads, ‘the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ’” (p. 228). Kenneth Wuest asserted: “The expression, ‘God and our Saviour’ is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (In These Last Days, p. 17). John Ankerberg and John Weldon maintained that “Greek scholars Dana and Mantley, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, confirm the truth of Sharp’s rule, and then explain: ‘Second Peter 1:1 … means that Jesus is our God and Savior” (Facts On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24).


John Dagg indicated that the rendering in our common English version at 2 Peter 1:1 should be emended to “the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) wrote: “According to the original, of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 525). Thomas Goodwin asserted that “Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” and that “it is clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283). Goodwin contended that “as by God and the Father is meant God the Father so by God and our Saviour is meant Jesus Christ” (p. 283). In his commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Gordon Clark translated the phrase as “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (New Heavens, New Earth, p. 170). Clark noted: “Other references to ‘our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ do not diminish the deity asserted here in 1:1” (p. 171). At his verse, the MacArthur Study Bible stated concerning “our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” The Greek construction has only one article before this phrase, making the entire phrase refer to the same person” (p. 1952). At this phrase at this verse, The Henry Morris Study Bible stated: “This expression could better be rendered as ‘our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 1947). In his commentary on 2 Peter & Jude, John MacArthur noted: “The Greek construction places just one article before the phrase God and Savior, which makes both terms refer to the same person. Thus Peter identifies Jesus, not just as Savior, but as God (cf. 1:11; 2:20, 3:2, 18; Isa. 43:3, 11:45, 21; 60:16; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8), the author and agent of salvation. The apostle made the same relation clear in his Pentecost sermon, in which he took the Old Testament truth of God and applied it to Jesus (Acts 2:21-36; cf. Matt. 1:21; Acts 4:12; 5:31)” (p. 23).

At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note indicating the accurate translation and meaning of the Greek. An earlier KJV edition printed in London in 1711 had the same note and a cross reference to Titus 2:13. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English translators and the editors of some standard KJV editions.


Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had actually removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611. In his commentary on several books of the Bible including 2 Peter, Thomas Holland attempted to defend the rendering in the KJV as he asserted: “While the phrase our God and Savior Jesus Christ is a clear testimony to Christ’s deity, the phrase God and our Savior Jesus Christ likewise has reference to God and Savior being the same person, namely Jesus Christ” (p. 289).


James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76).

So you can conclude the translators of the KJV made a mistake here with the rendering, and its NOT a perfect English translation?

Didn't they also translate the Holy sprit as sometimes being referred to as bei "it spoke/it thinks?"