Who says the KJV scholars are more honest than modern day translators?where are the manuscripts the KJV scholars used? I believe some people are honest and some are not honest in any day including today, and includeing the 17th century and including the kjv scholars, the proof is not in who they are or when they lived but in their words and the facts that either back up their words or don't.
The kjv conflicted with the geneva bible , with the tyndale bible. those were popular bibles of the day and people then rejected the kjv for those reasons. however roughly 75 percent of the tyndale bible is used in the KJV.
"it is therefore evident that the translators of 1611 had before them four Bibles which had come under Waldensian influences: the Diodati in Italian, the Olivetan in French, the Lutheran in German, and the Genevan in English. We have every reason to believe that they had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular" Benjamin Warfield, Collections of Opinions and Reviews, Vol. II, p 99.
The Waldensians had the "received text", the translators of the 1611 King James Version used these Waldensian Bibles, that to me, makes the KJV most authentic. During the Dark Ages, God's Word went into the wilderness for 1260 yrs, this Word of God came out of the wilderness at the reformation, that is where the Waldensians fit in, they brought the recieved texts out of the mountains, or wilderness. With a little study of Daniel and Revelation you can find out where God's Word came from at the reformation.
my objection to using jehovah for theos is that is not what theos means. it has nothing to do with my doctrine about the humanity of Jesus.
Well if it is not what it means then why do the Jehovahs witnesses translate it that way. They do not believe that Jesus is God, yet in translating Theos to mean Jehovah, they prove from their own Bible that Jesus is Jehovah. Your not making any sense to me.
It would be wrong to only look for translations that support ones views. but I don't do that. what is one to do when one has several bibles that all say something slightly different on a particular verse? your solution appparently is to take the kjv and forget the rest. my solution is to examine the evedince through greek interliniars, concordances, commentaries, greek dicitonaries, etc and then determine as best I can which is correct. My solution is therefore not nonsensical. your accusation is based on the assumption that I do no research. I don't do what you acccuse me of doing.
Exactly. No confusion for here.
It doesn't say that it says 'the word was made flesh'.
Well thats true. Hebrews 10:5 tells us that it was God (His Father) who prepared a body for Him.
It is nonsensical to say gods word is a he. just as it would be nonsensical to say my words are a he. God's word did not turn into a 2 cell fetus, that in my book is nonsense supreme. you accuse me of being nonsensical but offer no examples
Not if God's Word is a He. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we heheld
his glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth"John 1:14
John clearly thought the Word was a He. Only Jesus fills this description, to say the Word is anything else you have to wrest the scriptures of their meaning.
No, I said a literal translation of the verse would result in the word of godbeing made a clump of flesh. because flesh without bone to support it would fall into a clump. I used that to prove that you take john 1:14 figuratively, in that you take flesh as a syncedoche for Jesus. a synecdoche is a figure of speech whereby the lesser stands in for the greater, in this case, flesh the lesser stands in for Jesus the greater.
Sounds like you are taking the text literally, not figuratively. Literally the Word would have become a lump of literal flesh. Figuratively, the Word became human, of like flesh. I do take this figuratively.
You contradict yourself. first you say Jesus and the father aren't 2 gods, then you say the father is god and Jesus too (also, and ) is god.
You need to reread my posts. I have never said there are not two Gods, I have never said that they are two Gods composing one God as you suggested. What I did say is that Jesus is God, but not the one true God that is spoken of in the Bible. They both are God, but the Father is the original, one true God. Jesus is God by virtue of His coming forth from the Father.
Hebrews 1:1-2 compares Jesus to the prophets of old, both are said to have had god speak in them.the prophets of old are not mediators , Jesus is. that is a different subject. Jesus being created doesn't negate himi from having the ability to be a mediator between man (1st adam) and god. the second adam is mediating between the first adam and god.
You just proved my point here.
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2. hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds" Heb 1:1-2
This proves that the Son of God created the worlds. God created the worlds "by" Him, not by himself. If He did not exist in the beginning, how could God use the Son to create the worlds?.
Jesus didn't come to just be a prophet though did He?......like I have said before, He is a package deal, He is God's own Son, he cannot be compared to the prophets of old as merely a vessel for God to speak through. He is our Mediator. Saying a created being could die for our sins, a human sacrifice is all that is needed to atone for the worlds transgression of God's holy law.........I reject that theology completely. God gave His own Son because that was what was required to justify us, not another one like us, otherwise Adam could have died for Eves sins.
God speaks through me and in me just as he did in prophets of old and just as he did in Jesus. Do you not remember the verse that says 'we shall be like him and see him as he is'', or the verse that says
"greater things than these shall ye do for I go to my father."?
Yeah, like Him in character, but this still does not make us the literal divine children of God, we are adopted sons and daughters, there is a difference. We will not be like Jesus in that we will be able to mediate between God and man. And yes, I do believe God can work wonders through us if we have faith, just like He used Paul and Elijah and many others.
Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.
Mary went around a man or compassed a man to get the thing (male seed) that God created. No man fertilized her egg, god did. If marys egg wasn't used then she isn't the mother of JEsus.
I believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Again I am not going to try and explain what God deems to be a mystery. The bible says that Jesus came from the seed of David, that was in Mary's geneology so I believe it. The bible also says that Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit, it does not say that God created male human seed and fertilized Mary's egg, that is what you want to believe so you are trying to make scripture say that. God said that He would create a "new" thing, well taking human male seed and fertilizing human female eggs is not a "new" thing. However, humanity mixed with divinity, that is new.
bad translation therefore your conclusions are founded on falsitys.
here is what god actually said.
1ti 3:16
kai; oJmologoumevnwß mevga ejsti;n to; th'ß eujsebeivaß [[musthvrion: J;oßejfanerwvqh ejn sarkiv, ejdikaiwvqh ejn pneuvmati, w~fqh ajggevloiß, ejkhruvcqh ejn e~qnesin, ejpisteuvqh ejn kovsmw/, ajnelhvmfqh ejn dovxh/
The greek word translated incorrectly as god is
Even with that translation it still in my opinion doesn't change the meaning.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: "
who, which" was manifest in the flesh............etc" 1 Timothy 3:16. If it was manifest in the flesh, the mystery of godliness, then it still must have been Jesus, who else would be manifest in the flesh?....Who else could reveal the Father in the flesh, not just His words. He was the mystery of godliness which was manifest in the flesh. I have no problem with that.
You believe that because he is the son of god he has to descend in some way from god . I believe the fact that god created a male seed andused this creation of his to fertilize Mary's egg makes him the father of Jesus. You apparently can't see how this makes him the son of god. to me it is plain as day.
Well yes I do, how else do you get a literal Son?.....A child is not your child unless it comes from your substance. Otherwise He is just another creation of God, just like we are. We are told quite plainly that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father.
well I reject your solution based on jer 31:22 and that god is a spirit and to form Jesus a man of body soul and spirit outof spirit doesn't make sense, plus it would mean god took a part of his spirit and morphed it into flesh. which is nonsensical to me
God is not just spirit, He has a physical body and a spirit. Just like us, if we are made in His image, it would not make sense then. Daniels vision clearly shows two persons in heaven. There is also a description. (Daniel 7:9). Jesus came in the express image of His Father, and we are made in their image, we are not just spirit, although we have one.
God was in christ and will be in christ resurecting the dead. so to say christ resurects the dead means god resurects the dead because as Jesus said his father does the work not jesus. jesus can't do anything so he can't resurect the dead.
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
The father that dwelleth in Jesus doeth the resurection. God dwelleth in Jesus and Jesus isn't the one who indwells him. you can't be the one you're in. water isn't the glass it is in.
That is a misinterpretation of scripture to make it fit your desired point.
John 5:25-26 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the
voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26. For as the Father hath life in himself:
so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"
When the Father gives something to the Son, it means it is now His, it does
not mean that the Father is still going to keep it just for himself and only exercise that gift through the Son as you are implying. You twisting scripture is the only way to make it fit your interpretation. Jesus is the resurrection and the life, not the Father.
When Jesus was on earth He was our example. All His divinity was laid aside for a time, He could not exercise any power that we do not have access to, otherwise He would have had an unfair advantage. Jesus did completely the Fathers will, and relied on the Father for His all. He showed us how to do it. This does not mean that the Godhead was not His own, as Paul tells us differently.
However, when Jesus returns to resurrect the dead, He returns in all His glory and power. All things have been given to Him.
"As thou hast given him
power over all flesh,
that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him" John 17:2
Clearly here it is Jesus that gives life to those whom the Father has given Him, it is not the Father giving Him the life as He gives it to us, Jesus already has the life in himself. We are Christ's and Christ is God's.
God Bless,
Harlin