Lower than the angels? Does the KJV weaken Christ?

Elaborate a little will you?

In HIS service;
Jim </font>[/QUOTE]1 Timothy 3:16 in the NASB is claimed by KJVO's as an attack on the deity of Christ. On the other hand, John 1:18 which clearly declares that Jesus was God is rejected as saying God had a beginning. No explanation is good enough... and they are generally of more substance than the one you used earlier.

Of course no credit is given to the NASB for its direct declarations of Christ's deity in 2 Peter 1:1 or Titus 2:13.

 

OK then, I am willing to agree to disagree.

I see it as an error on the part of the KJV translators and all others who translate Brachu ti as other than "little while".

However, I accept what you say and also say that I am sorry for the "rush to judgement".

HankD

 

No...Trying to sugar-coat the Gnostic taint will NEVER be considered a good "explaination."

 

DavidJ;

The problem is, (as I have already stated) is that I see no "error" in this passage.

Jesus, the MAN is STILL a little lower than the angels. He will ALWAYS be 100% MAN. And man IS lower than the angels. (in the order of creation) This must be so. Otherwise one must also apply "a little while" lower than the angels to ALL men.

This in NO way reduces His Deity. But He WILL always be a Man. So the KJV passage in Hebrews retains this truth, while the NASB loses it.

You ask, "Which better puts forth the message of the Bible"? I answer, the KJV does, for the reasons stated. The NASB implies that Jesus was only "a little while" lower than the angels, therefore He is NO LONGER MAN. But clearly, Scripture refutes that notion doesn't it?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

OK then, I am willing to agree to disagree.

I see it as an error on the part of the KJV translators and all others who translate Brachu ti as other than "little while".

However, I accept what you say and also say that I am sorry for the "rush to judgement".

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]No problem Hank.

At least we can be civil to each other.
Unlike some here.
God bless your day today.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I would respond that the NASB accurately portrays Christ's act of laying aside His glory and condescending to take on flesh while the KJV does not do so as well.

I am still interested in an answer to my query. Why do you think we should accept your argument in defense of this particular KJV reading but reject similar or even stronger defenses of weak/ambiguous readings in MV's?

I don't reject your explanation out right. I don't think the KJV version is bad but rather just not the best it could be. It requires more explanation than the others.

 

Scott said,"I am still interested in an answer to my query. Why do you think we should accept your argument in defense of this particular KJV reading but reject similar or even stronger defenses of weak/ambiguous readings in MV's?"

_________________________________________________

Answer;

I don't think you should accept my explanation. I think you could or could not. That is your perogative. I offered it in answer to the OP.

I disagree with your "either-or" assumption. Not all things are "either-or". Not saying you said that either!

Just exactly what is it that any of us base our evaluation of "best" on? Isn't it the available data we have at the time? And shouldn't that be open for modification if in fact some other data is compellingly presented? On the other hand, if such data is not compelling then we ought to stand firm on our convictions. Isn't that what we ALL do?

On this passage, I am not convinced that it should be changed to read as does the NASB. It is not "weak/ambigous" to me. It is clear as glacier water. Ever seen Glacier Nat'l Park? That water is so clear it is as if one were looking through a pane of glass! (Sorry for the tourist advertisement! )

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I still don't know if you would accept defenses of MV's that were constructed and supported the way yours was. The core of my question is "Do you use fair balances?" Do the rules change based on whether a method of defense supports or opposes your preconceived bias?

 

BTW Scott;

You also said, "I would respond that the NASB accurately portrays Christ's act of laying aside His glory and condescending to take on flesh while the KJV does not do so as well."
--------------------------------------------------
Since I do not have NASB on my software, I have copied from the OP to illustrate my reply. I have bolded the differences.

9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (NASB)

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(KJV)

Now, you say that the NASB is more clear than the KJV concerning Christ's act of laying aside His divinity. But I say it is not. The NASB says, "because of" and the KJV says "for". I understand the difference as;

"because of" means 'for the reason of'.
"for" means 'to indicate a goal'.

A subtil difference to be sure. And for some folks not really a difference at all. But, For me at least, it is really a big difference. The one, (NASB) would mean He laid aside His Deity as a result of His death while the KJV would mean His death was His goal. (But that's just me )

No. Brother, the KJV is much more accurate here.IMO

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Do I use fair balances? I think I do. And I believe that my "bias" would be open to change based on compelling evidence. It has many times in my life. I USED to be Pentecostal!!! I don't think the "rules" should change at all, though I have seen it happen many times.



In HIS service;
Jim

 

If He was "a little while" lower than the angels then exactly what does that imply? Whatever "lower than the angels" is understood to be, the NASB implies He is NO LONGER that thing. Otherwise, "a little while" means nothing. I was in prison for "a little while". I am NO LONGER in prison. The clause "a little while" implies a short period of time. What else could it mean?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The whole problem with your logic is that the text doesn't say "a little while a man", but "a little while lower than the angels". No longer being lower than the angels does not preclude him still being man.

 

OK.
We disagree.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Jim, simple direct question: Is Jesus still a little lower than the angels?

 

Do I use fair balances? I think I do. And I believe that my "bias" would be open to change based on compelling evidence. It has many times in my life. I USED to be Pentecostal!!! I don't think the "rules" should change at all, though I have seen it happen many times.



In HIS service;
Jim </font>[/QUOTE]So you are open to the idea that John 1:18 in the NASB directly supports Christ's deity while in the KJV it does not?

You accept the argument that "He" in 1 Tim 3:16 is a reasonable translation based on a textual argument and should not be seen as an "attack" on Christ's deity?

 

Scott;
To your first passage in question...no I am not. At least, not until I an shown how it is "alledgedly" better. I have said, I don't have NASB on my software. Nor do I care to. However, I DO have ASV 1901. And it, (ASV) reads the same as KJV.

To your second, it may not be an "attack" per se, but it is not accurate to say "he who" rather than "God was".
I say this because the entire sentence does not make sense otherwise. Since I don't have NASB, let me illustrate with KJV.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
(God was) justified in the Spirit
(God was) seen of angels
(God was) preached unto the gentiles
(God was) believed on in the world
(God was) received up into glory."

IMO: It is quite "clunky" to insert "He who was" into the parenthesis as I have done with "God was". That is because each of those phrases can stand alone as a complete thought with "God was" but not with "He who was".

You asked! This is the way I see it. And I think it is accurate.




In HIS service;
Jim

 

In the context of the question: "Does the KJV weaken Christ", I think that we should take a look at the preponderance of scripture, as arguing over a single verse can lead us around in circles...........

Let's face it....All mainstream translations (KJV,NASB,NKJV, etc.) attest to the fact the Jesus Christ is/was/always will be God. That He laid aside His glory to come in the flesh as a man, died as a man, and was declared to be the Son of God with power upon His resurrection.

Keeping this in mind, I personally have never had a problem with the passage of scripture referring to Him as being a little lower than the angels (for a little while) in any translation.

I don't think that the KJV weakens the deity of our Lord at all......

Just my 2 cents (before taxes)..