The Deity Of Christ In The NIV And KJV

[Salamander]

This is how 2 Peter 1:11 looks in my 1611 First Edition facsimile:​

2 Peter 1
11 For so an entrance shall be ministred vnto you abundantly into the euerlasting kingdome of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ.​

So why not use our dear Savior's name as it appears in the 1611 original with an "I" rather than a "J"?​

HankD​

Could it be that we don't use Gutenburg's typeset anymore?

I thought you knew this.

 

[Salamander]

Sister Amy started this Topic with nothing.
Ed expects that she will end the topic at the close with most of
it (the 'nothing') left.

Mission Control to Major Ed! Come in, Major Ed!

 

[Salamander]

Brother franklinmonroe gave a good response to this question about 6 mos. ago when he posted this in another thread to another subject, which I shall quote, with emphasis.Personally, I'd say that franklinmonroe has pretty well done 'hit the nail with his head'. And dead-center, at that!

BTW, I'll ask the question of what difference does it make, in the number of letters in the English spelling, bein' as the Greek word from which this is rendered, [σωτηρ (sOter)] is five letters and the Hebrew word from which it is rendered, [transliterated as yasha, sorry, I cannot get the Hebrew to print on my computer, but the letters are 'yod', 'shin', and 'ayin' from what I'm able to ascertain] is three letters?

One has to stretch all linguistic credibility far beyond the breaking point, in order to 'impose' some 'Biblical numerology' theory, which is nowhere given in Scripture, in the first place, as to the claimed implications, into some preferred spelling of centuries old 'Anglicized' English vs. modern 'Americanized' English.

(Never even mind, that the only reason any 'KJV' got into 'the public domain' in the United States, in the first place, was by someone stealing the rights to it, hence ripping off the Church of England and the British Crown. BTW, the Tyndale Bible, Matthews Bible, and the Geneva Bible, among other English versions, had no such rights, FTR, so anyone could print and publish any of them, entirely legally.) But back to the subject:

Fine to personally prefer one or the other. Not very good to hold up the weight of Bible Doctrine on, though.

Also consistent with the question I just askes above, is why was it permissible to 'update' the spelling of, say, "cattell" to "cattle", as was seemingly done by Benjamin Blayney in 1769, but not for another to 'update' the spelling of "Saviour" to "Savior", today? (If you really want to see how the KJV spelled words, check some of the posts of Ed Edwards, who often quotes from a reproduction of the 1611 Edition.) I fail to see the difference, and "I ain't no 'Englishman'", so I do not really care which spelling is currently preferred "across the big pond".

Ed

Emphasis on what was offered for the debate was the failure to capitalize the "S" to indicate Deity.

Either the offering was dishonest or not accurate, but since alot of MV's have changed the "s" to "S", it shows they realized the MISTAKE and corrected their versions.

 

[rbell]

Pot calls kettle "Black!" then looks in mirror and all he can see is white. But then if he'd wash his mirror more often he'd find out that shaving cream left on a mirror remains white, even after years of neglect.

The UN just called. You're under indictment for torturing a metaphor.

 

[rbell]

Emphasis on what was offered for the debate was the failure to capitalize the "S" to indicate Deity.

Either the offering was dishonest or not accurate, but since alot of MV's have changed the "s" to "S", it shows they realized the MISTAKE and corrected their versions.

So does that mean the KJV's that don't capitalize "He" when referring to Christ....doesn't get it?

Of all the KJVO arguments you've ever offered, this one is by far the weakest.

I can just see it now. Darkened, smoke-filled room....the NIV translators, mid-seance, hear from Lucifer...he says (in his evil "Pitchfork-Gravelly Voice™ ")....

I know how to get them.....let's take the "u" out of "Saviour" and not capitalize it.............that will help me stamp out Bibles and RULE THE WORLD! BWUUUHAHAHAHAhahahaha (hack, hack, cough). (At this point, Old Lou breaks into a coughing fit. You see, he's a heavy smoker.)


Like I said.....silly argument.

 

[EdSutton]

The UN just called. You're under indictment for torturing a metaphor.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Nice censure there to try and prove your so-called point. Now, so you won't remain to appear so dishonest, go and quote the ACTUAL NEGATIVE THAT AGREES WITH THE OTHER ACTAUL NEGATIVE THY ENGLISH MAJOR.

Was I "yelling"? I guess so, the keyboard has a way of sensing my agitation with those who dishonestly represent the words of another, especially since it is common here in the BB.

No point or censure attempted. Nor did I assume anyone was yelling, eiother.

My alter ego, Language Cop, merely found it hilarious when you were 'called' for the misspelling of "grammatical" as "grammtical".

Ed

 

[thomas15]

God is our Saviour. A savior can be anyone who saved another by any means to preserve the mortal.

God not only can preserve the mortal, but also can and will preserve the immortal.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense to some, even though it is perfectly Biblical.

Again Professor Salamander, you are making my case that some KJVO folks do not know English grammar rules and apply them.

Explain what part of english the word "and" is and how it affects the sentence clause and you will see the mistake you are making. I could tell you the answer but then you would have learned nothing and will continue making your incorrect claim.

You know my friend, I know english grammar and refer constantly to my grammar books when I read the KJB. It is because I want to be able to understand the KJB that I keep up with this, no other reason. Strange but true but my opinion is that many KJVOist do not know grammar but rather rely on commentaries and what others say a passage means. This is even more tragic when folks claim that the KJV is an inspired infallable translation.

You have a golden opportunity to prove me wrong, take advantage of it.

 

[EdSutton]

Emphasis on what was offered for the debate was the failure to capitalize the "S" to indicate Deity.

Either the offering was dishonest or not accurate, but since alot of MV's have changed the "s" to "S", it shows they realized the MISTAKE and corrected their versions.

Sorry, that was not emphasized in your question, although that may well be what you intended. I have more than once noted that I am not a mind reader, and that has not changed in the last 48 hrs.

I also noted about 6 mos. ago that the use of 'case' is an 'English' addition to and the interpretation of Scripture, as neither the Greek nor Hebrew languages make any such differentiation in Scripture, in references to Deity, nor to any other proper nouns, etc.

I consider that argument as to which words are or are not capitalized in the KJV, NKJV, NIV or any other translation or version, save for some which are deliberate attempts to promote a particular doctrine, such as the NWT and CWT, IMO, as spurious, at best. Language is not static, despite the attempt of some to "Make it so!". Neither is grammatical construction or alphabet construction.

Later Greek mss. copies are written in a different "lower case" script (called miniscules, which I'm sure you know), which did not even exist at the time the NT Scripture was written. BTW, most of the NT Mss we have, of any 'flavor', are 'miniscules', not 'Uncials', if I'm not mistaken.

And personally, I refuse to write on this Board (or anywhere else), using so-called "proper internet protocol", which would be all small case, unless 'yelling', but that is my choice, not someone else's mandate.

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed notes the NIV is a very robust Bible on the matter of the Diety of Christ (Messiah Jesus).

Thomas15: //Again Professor Salamander, you are making my case that some KJVO folks do not know English grammar rules and apply them.//

Thank you, Brother Thomas15. Your (Thomas15) honoring that Wonderful TEACHER (Salamander) with the title 'Professor' is a good move. Except for a slight problem with understanding the deferred pronoun referent (referent follows pronoun in text) he (Salamander) does quite well in both his grammar & grandpa

//You know my friend, I know english grammar and refer constantly to my grammar books when I read the KJB. It is because I want to be able to understand the KJB that I keep up with this, no other reason. Strange but true but my opinion is that many KJVOist do not know grammar but rather rely on commentaries and what others say a passage means. This is even more tragic when folks claim that the KJV is an inspired infallable translation.//

Amen, Brother Thomas15 -- TEACH it (the above quoted passage) !

An especially good guide is

Figures of Speech
by E.W. Bullinger
Systematically Classified
at:
​

http://www.tentmaker.org/bullinger.htm

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed notes both the NIV and NASB {updated} (not NASV needed for Riplinger's arostic algebra) is a very robust Bible on the matter of the Diety of Christ (Messiah Jesus).

... [sorry, wrong pew]

 

[HankD]

Could it be that we don't use Gutenburg's typeset anymore?

I thought you knew this.

neither do we use several elements of 17th century elizabethan-jacobian period English in our spelling, syntax and grammar anymore.

Are you consistent?
How doth thou spellest "neighbour" or "labour" or "vapour" or "musick"?

Peruse the spelling chart, this is not a joke:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

The 'Diety of Christ' issue is stressed more in the NIV and TNIV than in all versions of the KJVs -- oh, I mean EDITIONS.

Neither my e-sword.com KJV1611 Edition nor KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers contain the words 'saviour' nor 'Saviour'.

Now the KJV1611 Edition does contain 'Sauiour'

Here are some Saviour counts:

Geneva
17 OT
24 NT

KJV1611
14 OT
24 NT

KJV1679
13 OT
24 NT

BTW, neither in the OT or NT are all 'saviour's 'Saviour', but most of them are.

So we can see that 3 Saviours were lost from the Geneva 1599 Edition and the KJV1611 Edition.
So we see that 1 Saviour is lost when the KJV1611 Edition got MODIFIED, EDITED, CHANGED, REVISED.

How many 'Saviour's can we afford to loose before we realise that changing the Bible is WRONG-WRONG-WRONG?

By contrast; the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003) has these 'Savior's (all Capital Letters on 'S'). This is the original (unrevised HCSB).

18 OT
24 NT

Notice by comparison to the HCSB (STANDARD)
the KJV1611 Edition is missing 4 'Savior's
the KJV1769 family of Editions is missing 3 'Savior's

\o/ Praise Hasheem the Saviour, saviour, savior, Savior \o/

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How doth thou spellest "neighbour" or "labour" or "vapour" l[/URL]

HankD

Well, outside of the US the rest of the English speaking world spells them just like that

 

[HankD]

Well, outside of the US the rest of the English speaking world spells them just like that

Yes, I realize that C4K, I am trying to get Salamander to look at his consistency.

HankD

 

[David Lamb]

1. Is Jesus "Saviour" or "savior"?

(deleted because what I wrote had already been posted by others - sorry!)

 

[franklinmonroe]

Sal, Sal, why persecutest thou the English language?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Emphasis on what was offered for the debate was the failure to capitalize the "S" to indicate Deity.

Either the offering was dishonest or not accurate, but since alot of MV's have changed the "s" to "S", it shows they realized the MISTAKE and corrected their versions.

At church two weeks ago, I noticed that my wife's Scofield KJV was different than my Zodhiates KJV Study Bible at John 6:63. The Scofield looks like this --

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life​

The implication is that neither occurrence is a direct referrence to the Holy Spirit. But the Zodhiates has capitalized the 'ess' in the first occurrence, making it "Spirit", a referrence to the Holy Ghost. BTW, both places the Greek word is pneuma (Strong's #4151 meaning simply a spirit, the Holy Spirit, or gentle blast of air {like a breath}) --

It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life​

I checked my facsimilie AV1611 (and confirmed with online photos of an actual 1611 edition) and originally both occurrences of the word were capitalized, causing two referrences to the Third Person of the Trinity (it looks something like this) --

It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the wordes that I speake unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.​

What's in your KJV?

 

[EdSutton]

Sal, Sal, why persecutest thou the English language?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

What's in your KJV?

"What's in your wallet?"

Ed