Luke 4:4 -- controversy

[BrianT]

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That's good. So do I. Why do I reject it? Because they made translational decisions based on what they already decided it should say.

If you reject the NWT,then why not reject the NASb? They both have TWO Gods in John 1:18,not to mention the same rendering of Luke 4:4.
</font>[/QUOTE]Because the NASB was not translated in a way that sought to make the text fit preconceived doctrine. Please pay attention.

As for John 1:18, we've been over this many times, and you have never explained which part bothers you: the fact that the NASB says Jesus was begotten, or the fact that the NASB says Jesus was God. Is Jesus God? Yes. Is Jesus begotten? Yes. Does that require that the Son be a different God from the Father? No.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

As for John 1:18, we've been over this many times, and you have never explained which part bothers you: the fact that the NASB says Jesus was begotten, or the fact that the NASB says Jesus was God.

Neither.What erks me is that the NASb,like it's twin sister the NWT,has two gods;a beggoten god explaining a unbeggoten god.i.e. TWO DIFFERENT gods!! Matthew 7.20!

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As for John 1:18, we've been over this many times, and you have never explained which part bothers you: the fact that the NASB says Jesus was begotten, or the fact that the NASB says Jesus was God.

Neither.What erks me is that the NASb,like it's twin sister the NWT,has two gods;a beggoten god explaining a unbeggoten god.i.e. TWO DIFFERENT gods!! Matthew 7.20! </font>[/QUOTE]If calling Christ "begotten" is not a problem for you, and calling Christ "God" is not a problem for you, why does this passage's meaning *require* two gods? It doesn't. Especially since the *context* affirms there is not two gods, but it is instead talking about the SAME God (1:1)Jesus is God, Jesus is begotten. This is orthodox Trinity doctrine.

Pretend the passage said "seen" instead of "begotten", i.e. Jesus the Son is seen, while the Father is not. Would that require two gods, the seen god describing a unseen god? No, I don't think you'd say that. Then why not apply the exact same logic and principles to "begotten God", unless you are only opposed to it simply because you want it to be a reason to oppose the NASB in general?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Then why not apply the exact same logic and principles to "begotten God", unless you are only opposed to it simply because you want it to be a reason to oppose the NASB in general?

That is one reason I oppose the NASb;another reason would the NASb's keeping the RCC's damnable doctrine of confessing SINS to another MAN , Just like it's twin sister the NWT.

look up James 5:16 between the two.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Just more of the same old silliness. If you read John 1, it is explicit that there is only one God and that God was made flesh. This is just foolish for you to keep repeating the same old untruths. It is deceptive and distorting. It has the potential to mislead people to believe something that simply is not true. These unmitigated attacks on the word of God are a shame. Same things with James 5:16 -- it is just another attack on the truth of Scripture and it is one that every lover of God and Scripture should repudiate wholeheartedly.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Then why not apply the exact same logic and principles to "begotten God", unless you are only opposed to it simply because you want it to be a reason to oppose the NASB in general?

That is one reason I oppose the NASb;
</font>[/QUOTE]Glad to see you admit that one reason you oppose the NASB is simply because you want John 1:18 to be a reason. Nothing like bias!

another reason would the NASb's keeping the RCC's damnable doctrine of confessing SINS to another MAN , Just like it's twin sister the NWT.

look up James 5:16 between the two.

Actually, I was considering and examining this exact issue just yesterday. Did you know that in Greek, this is the same word the KJV translates "trespasses" in Matt 6:14-15? Did you know it's the same word the KJV translates as "sins" in Eph 1:17, Eph 2:5 and Col 2:13? Is the very Greek the KJV was translated from teaching "damnable doctrine"?

 

[gb93433]

One of the things I have noticed being done by some is to be reactionary. For example are we going to discontinue the use of elder because the JW's have them and the Mormons have them? How about using what scripture teaches and give the correct teaching of the word.

Some have said that the modern translations have deleted verses. How do you know that the KJV hasn't added some that were not in the original text. From what I have read the KJV used at its earliest document a twelfth century manuscript. That is much later than what we have today. We know that the later manuscripts were corrupted by commentary written in by others especially where the text was hard to understand.

I believe that we have the best text today than ever before.

I have not seen to many KJV only people adhere to Mark 16:17,18, "17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Any new tongues speakers, snake handlers and poison drinkers? If not, then they are really not KJV only. Just conveniently KJV.