• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The New Internation Version (NIV) Bible completely removes the word "Godhead"

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by Proverb2717, Jul 3, 2012.

  1. Proverb2717

    Proverb2717 New Member

    67
    +1
    Non-Denom
    Private
    AU-Labor
    Oh, and look at the famous John 3:16 verse from the NIV Version:

    NIV removed the word "begotten".
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ByTheSpirit

    ByTheSpirit Pray always!!

    +2,940
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Well actually it didn't remove the word begotten. Begotten just means one and only, so it's just a modern usage of the word.. How many people walk around and refer to their only child as their begotten? I don't refer to my only son as my begotten, he is my only son.

    The Godhead argument I find rather weak, because in those verses the Greek is offshot of theon, which is just a term for divine being. All those verses you referenced you made it seem as if the modern translations completely changed everything about those scriptures by editing that word, but as in most other cases, the word wasn't removed it was updated.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2012
  3. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Oh, get over it. "Begotten means "only born". or "one and only". "Godhead" is not a critical word. There are enough other scriptures to give us the idea. I once knew a pastor who condemned the Living Bible paraphrase because it changed the word "blood" to "sacrifice". How ridiculous.
     
  4. branchofthevine

    branchofthevine Newbie

    746
    +56
    Christian
    Single
    CA-Others
    Begotten doesn't mean "only born" or "one and only"

    It is a past participle (so says dictionary.com at least) or beget which means something like reproduce, sort of giving birth idea.

    The idea of Jesus being the only begotten of the Father, is that Jesus is the only one who is God reproduced as a man because that is what the term implies. That Jesus is God who is reproduced as a man, so fully God, and at the same time fully man.

    I think it is one of the most beautiful words in the English language actually, but that is my own opinion.
     
  5. Skala

    Skala I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

    +410
    Baptist
    Married
    The fact that you draw attention to a single word "begotten" shows a misunderstanding of the underlying Greek and what is going on in the translation from Greek to English process.

    The phrase "only begotten" is the English rendering of the Greek word "monogenes". Thus, your argument should have been that they removed the word "only" too!

    Heb 11:17 says that Isaac was Abraham's "monogenes" (only begotten) son, but we know that is not true. Ishmael was born before Isaac.

    Thus we can see that the word monogenes can sometimes mean "only important" or "only special" child, too. So there's nothing wrong the NIV's translation.
     
  6. ByTheSpirit

    ByTheSpirit Pray always!!

    +2,940
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    I was just about to say this, amen! This is just one example of people who hold the KJV as God's only inspired Word considering the English as more important than the original. We should always be careful not to do that.
     
  7. Proverb2717

    Proverb2717 New Member

    67
    +1
    Non-Denom
    Private
    AU-Labor

    Thank you, BranchoftheVine. Begotten is used because it implies Jesus Christ is fully man as well as fully God. He is the literal only begotten of God.

    As far as these other irrelevant arguments involving original greek, that's useless. If you are an average Bible reader, you will not have original script to compare translations. That is essentially the Bible's printer's job. An average Bible reader should have a completely fufilling Bible without need for a study guide or accompanying texts. The King James Version of the Bible being the best translation.
     
  8. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    You don't want to hijack this thread into another KJVO discussion as many people don't agree with you, including me.
     
  9. Proverb2717

    Proverb2717 New Member

    67
    +1
    Non-Denom
    Private
    AU-Labor
    Hijack the thread I created? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

    Oh, and if you want some more King James Versions and New International Version comparison, look at this one!!

    1 Timothy 3:16 - King James Version
    1 Timothy 3:16 - New International Version



    huh... seems a bit off...
     
  10. ByTheSpirit

    ByTheSpirit Pray always!!

    +2,940
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Sadly, it appears that is where this is going. Proverb2717, by your argument we should just read the English and not even try to utilize great Bible resources such as Strong's concordance and what not? We should just take a group of believers for their word and translation of the original which they know and we don't? That argument really lacks merit, and I believe would counter Paul's argument to "handle correctly the word of truth" by study.

    Considering the scripture above, God is subject of that passage, so the He listed there, would still be referring to God, thus no contradiction or issue. The only issue is with people who try to find nit-picks with modern versions of God's Word.
     
  11. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    First, you need to learn to communicate with people without being insulting. I've been a believer for 63 years and am an ordained minister of the Gospel. I know a little more than you think I do. Both verses you posted say the same thing.
     
  12. Proverb2717

    Proverb2717 New Member

    67
    +1
    Non-Denom
    Private
    AU-Labor
    According to Revelation 22:16, Jesus Christ is the Morning Star.

    But now, let us look at The King James Version and New International Version of Isaiah 14:12

    King James Version - Isaiah 14:12

    New International Version - Isaiah 14:12


    Why does the New International Version refer to Lucifer as the morning star??
     
  13. Proverb2717

    Proverb2717 New Member

    67
    +1
    Non-Denom
    Private
    AU-Labor
    Revrobor, you tell me to learn how to communicate... yet your first reply in this thread is started with "Oh, get over it."

    I am allowed to voice my opinion about translations of the Bible.
     
  14. Azadok2day

    Azadok2day Guest

    +0
    This is only one small example , the NIV and newer bible have an agenda to change the word of God completely omitting whole verses and changing wording to hide truths God has warned us about .

    Here is a great example and one that will touch many a nerve in this forum , but it is the truth of Gods word and that is all I will ever point out .

    Ezekiel 13:20 wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold I am against your pillows , wherewith Ye hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms and will let the souls go even the souls ye hunt to make them fly.

    The word fly was changed to bird in the NIV bible which changes the whole context of the warning God gave to us for these end times . This is a warning about the rapture and the Satan is hunting those souls with the promise of flying them away .

    Revelation 22:19.......If any man shall take away from the words of this book and this phrophecy , God shall take away his part of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things that are written in this book.

    Bible Version Comparison Chart THIS LINK SHOWS ALL THE CHANGES .
     
  15. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Birds "fly". Rev. 22:19 is referring to John's prophesy in Revelation not the Bible.
     
  16. revrobor

    revrobor Veteran

    +315
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    That's advise not an insult. You do need to get over it. it's not a problem except to KJVOs.
     
  17. ByTheSpirit

    ByTheSpirit Pray always!!

    +2,940
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    First of all, I truly appreciate your concern for me and I don't mean that in a snide type way. The church needs more people who care for each other, not bite each other. Anyways, I understand the argument about verse removal and all that, but to be honest, the verses that are removed are not supported in a wide variety of the manuscripts available today, especially some of the earliest. That is why they were omitted, others were copied from the Latin Vulgate or added in by someone making notes on manuscripts. Erasmus himself admitted that. The translation team of the KJV even said one of their main goals was to provide a version of the Bible that used modern language, so I believe they would support a modern translation. The manuscripts they had at the time were not very early at all, the oldest dating to around the 9th century or so. So there was 900 years + of people making notes and comments in manuscripts to cause those extra verses to be added in. Does that make the KJV a lesser translation, no, those notes help explain the text more in many cases, but they should not be confused with the original word of God, which the KJV makes it seem so. Not to mention that verses and chapter were never in the originals, those were added much later for assistance in referencing passages, so to say that Matthew 17:21 was omitted (with all the others) just proves the modern translations are all evil, is really inaccurate when if you'd have asked Matthew after he wrote it to show you Matthew 17:21 he'd have looked at you funny, because those were added years later, as stated. God bless you!
     
  18. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +2,961
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    hi proverb2717,

    Listen, I'm sure that you are a well intentioned believer, but you have just used the very example that onlybygrace pointed out.

    You responded:
    Begotten doesn't mean "only born" or "one and only"

    It is a past participle (so says dictionary.com at least) or beget which means something like reproduce, sort of giving birth idea.

    The idea of Jesus being the only begotten of the Father, is that Jesus is the only one who is God reproduced as a man because that is what the term implies. That Jesus is God who is reproduced as a man, so fully God, and at the same time fully man.

    I think it is one of the most beautiful words in the English language actually, but that is my own opinion.
    You see, you're still looking at the word 'begotten' as if that's the word that John wrote in the original manuscript. John wrote the word 'monogenes'. Now, to find out if the KJ or the NIV is correct you would need to research what the Greek word 'monogenes' means because that's the word that John wrote down. 'Begotten' was the word that a translator at some point decided was the best translation of 'monogenes', and maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

    This is exactly why some of the newer translations are, in some ways, better. When the great KJ translators translated the KJ the words that they read in John 3:16 was not, "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son..." No, the KJ translators were reading the Textus Receptus which was a translation made by a man by the name of Erasmus in the 1500's of just a very, very few manuscripts. So, the truth is that what we read at John 3:16 in the KJV are actually the words that Erasmus translated and here's what one writer says of the Erasmus translation:

    It is sad to report that such a noble undertaking was so badly handled (all the more so since it became the basis of Luther's German translation, and later -- with some slight modifications -- of the English King James Version). The speed with which the book went through the press meant that it contained literally thousands of typographical errors. What is more, the text was hastily and badly edited from a few late manuscripts. (If you'd like to some further research, here's a reasonably good explanation of the Erasmus' work: Textus Receptus)

    So, the point that I believe onlybygrace was making is that before you go hopping up and down and pointing fingers with this, "Oh, that's sacrilage that the NIV doesn't have exactly and all the same words as the KJV, you need to know what the Greek is and find out what word best describes the Greek words used. Don't look at the english words. The Scriptures were never, never, never, never, never written in english in their original manuscripts. The new covenant Scriptures were written in pretty much all Greek and so the issue is whether the translator picked the right english word to translate the intended meaning of the Greek. And in the newer translations at examples such as this one, is there a better word that people understand today that is a better word to translate the original Greek meaning?

    Similarly, with missing verses or phrases from the KJ to the NIV. Don't get yourself all tied up that the english NIV doesn't say exactly what the english KJ says. Find the missing phrase or verse; go to the lastest or most reliable Greek manuscript copy that we have today and see if that word or phrase is there or not. There are several places in the KJ where it is known that verses were added based on manuscript notations that had been made by person or persons unknown. It is fairly well accepted, and is explained in the site reference I gave, that Erasmus did come to places where he didn't have any manuscript evidence to go on and just wrote down what he thought was the 'right' thing to say.

    If you really want to know what is the best english translation of the Scriptures, well, to be honest you'll have to set out for an archeological excavation to find the original documents because the best that we have today are copies of copies of copies. Are some of those copies of copies of copies slightly different? Yes, they are. But friend, please understand that God's purpose in providing the written word to you is that you may come to know the truth and His Son as the only way of eternal life and there are very, very, very, very few translations of the Scriptures that fail at that task. God's word will go forth and accomplish that for which it was sent, in many, many languages and a single word or phrase that one would argue, "Well it should say 'begotten' not 'one and only' is doing more harm to the purpose for which God sent His word to His people Israel.


    What you should do is tell all those lost people that you share the hope of eternal life with is this. Look, it doesn't matter that Jesus is described as 'begotten' or 'one and only', what matters is that you believe your Creator sent him to die for your sin and that through faith you may earn the reward of eternal life. That my friend and brother is the purpose of God's word. See to it, as best you are able, to make sure that everyone that you come into contact with understands that!

    God bless you,
    In Christ, Ted
     
  19. ByTheSpirit

    ByTheSpirit Pray always!!

    +2,940
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    And I give a LOUD AND RESOUNDING :amen: I think that the written Word of God is intended to lead us to and make us more like the living Word of God, Jesus.
     
  20. Proverb2717

    Proverb2717 New Member

    67
    +1
    Non-Denom
    Private
    AU-Labor
    MiamiTed, no offense, but you can't even distinct my posts from another users. Might want to re-check that. I let the facts speak:

    King James Version - Ephesians 3:9
    New International Version - Ephesians 3:9

    As you can see here, Ephesians 3:9 in the King James Version of the Bible CLEARLY wants to notify the deity of Jesus Chist. The New International Version removes the deity of Jesus Christ.
     
Loading...