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

[Azadok2day]

Do you notice what you did? You did not refute the content of what I wrote. You go off at your unrelated tangent to what you want to say and you DID NOT deal with the content of my post to you.

Oz

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”



Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

Quite frankly I am amazed that you think the only scripture the seven churchs in Asia had was the Revlelation of Jesus to John . I am willing to bet they had all of Paul's letters and maybe even the four Gospels by the time John wrote revelation on Patamos .

My answer is not a tangent, it is an honest question regarding our previous posts with regards to Revelation 22:19 being a warning to all . I mean do you not think God would see how his words are being chaned in these newer bibles today . Does God not know the END from the BEGINNING. How could you possibly think the message only applied to the generation around the time John wrote these words of Christ !

I added a couple more verses from the word of Our Father in regards to changing His letters to us. I also never told anyone what bible they should read , I simply pointed out that the changes can effect warnings to us from God .

 

[Azadok2day]

I agree that my exposition will have no impact on this KJV-only supporter who wants Rev. 22:19 to apply to the entire Bible. However, there are people who read this who need the biblical evidence to oppose such teaching.

There is a person in this thread from Kazakhstan.What meaning has this KJV-only position to him? I have SIL translator friends who are translating the Bible into the Buru language of East Timor. What on earth would a KJV-only position mean to them?

Some people don't seem to understand that the Bible was written one book at a time. The other writers did not have the entire NT before them as they wrote. It is only rational to understand that what was written in this one Book of Revelation in Rev. 22:18-19 could only apply to that one book. But is that being unbiblical for me, an evangelical, to talk of a rational understanding of a book of the Bible?

Thanks so much for exposing the errors of some of these views. I sincerely appreciate your posts on this forum. You are a breath of fresh air in biblical content on this forum.

Oz

I believe the manuscripts chosen for the KJV bible are the ones God wanted us to have so using those to translate to any other language is no different than an English addition KJV.

 

[OzSpen]

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

Quite frankly I am amazed that you think the only scripture the seven churchs in Asia had was the Revlelation of Jesus to John . I am willing to bet they had all of Paul's letters and maybe even the four Gospels by the time John wrote revelation on Patamos .

My answer is not a tangent, it is an honest question regarding our previous posts with regards to Revelation 22:19 being a warning to all . I mean do you not think God would see how his words are being chaned in these newer bibles today . Does God not know the END from the BEGINNING. How could you possibly think the message only applied to the generation around the time John wrote these words of Christ !

I added a couple more verses from the word of Our Father in regards to changing His letters to us. I also never told anyone what bible they should read , I simply pointed out that the changes can effect warnings to us from God .

You still refuse to refute the biblical content I gave you from the Book of Revelation to demonstrate that Rev. 22:18-19 only referred to the Book of Revelation.

You are off with your own agenda.

Bye, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I believe the manuscripts chosen for the KJV bible are the ones God wanted us to have so using those to translate to any other language is no different than an English addition KJV.

What you 'believe' does not alter the fact that none of the Textus Receptus included MSS earlier than the 10th century and Erasmus could not find one Greek MSS for the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. The verses which you quote from Rev. 22:18-19 are an English translation of the verses that Erasmus translated from Latin into Greek. Not one MSS has been found since Erasmus's time that agrees with Erasmus's translation of the last 6 verses of Revelation. There are 17 variants that have been found in Erasmus's Greek translation, based on MSS that have since been found that are earlier than those used by Erasmus.

Your historical understanding of the bibliology surrounding Rev. 22 is sadly lacking.

Oz

 

[Azadok2day]

What you 'believe' does not alter the fact that none of the Textus Receptus included MSS earlier than the 10th century and Erasmus could not find one Greek MSS for the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. The verses which you quote from Rev. 22:18-19 are an English translation of the verses that Erasmus translated from Latin into Greek. Not one MSS has been found since Erasmus's time that agrees with Erasmus's translation of the last 6 verses of Revelation. There are 17 variants that have been found in Erasmus's Greek translation, based on MSS that have since been found that are earlier than those used by Erasmus.

Your historical understanding of the bibliology surrounding Rev. 22 is sadly lacking.

Oz

That may be true that I am not up to date on all the different manuscripts used and are lacking but what I am not lacking is FAITH. Faith that God the Father knew exactly what he wanted in the hands of man for Four Hundred years before his judgement began . Faith that God knew some men may struggle with His word but faith again God would provide great scholars to aide us , like Strong , Smith , E.W. Bullinger and others .

Satan has from before the foundation of this age fought God and will do anything to subvert Gods plan including subtly changing bible verses to lead the faithful from that narrow path.

I will keep my faith in God and believe He knew exactly what bible man should have , otherwise he would have fixed that in 1612.

 

[OzSpen]

That may be true that I am not up to date on all the different manuscripts used and are lacking but what I am not lacking is FAITH. Faith that God the Father knew exactly what he wanted in the hands of man for Four Hundred years before his judgement began . Faith that God knew some men may struggle with His word but faith again God would provide great scholars to aide us , like Strong , Smith , E.W. Bullinger and others .

Satan has from before the foundation of this age fought God and will do anything to subvert Gods plan including subtly changing bible verses to lead the faithful from that narrow path.

I will keep my faith in God and believe He knew exactly what bible man should have , otherwise he would have fixed that in 1612.

Sadly, faith does not determine the content of MSS.

Again, you refuse to answer the exposition I have provided of why Rev. 22:18-19 applies only to the Book of Revelation. If you continue to ignore my exposition, I will not respond any further to you as you are demonstrating that you do not want to engage in a discussion of the content of Revelation 1 and 22.

Are you telling me I am an agent of Satan?

Oz

 

[Azadok2day]

Sadly, faith does not determine the content of MSS.

Again, you refuse to answer the exposition I have provided of why Rev. 22:18-19 applies only to the Book of Revelation. If you continue to ignore my exposition, I will not respond any further to you as you are demonstrating that you do not want to engage in a discussion of the content of Revelation 1 and 22.

Are you telling me I am an agent of Satan?

Oz

I did answer your question , you just did not like the answer . Reread my posts and you will see I answerd , did I answer point for point , no , but I answered the general premise of the statements and posting point.

And by no way did I infer you were an agent of Satan , I said Satan has been actively opposing God and has absolutely been involved threw his children in writing these newer bibles slightly tweaking the word , omitting some and adding others to lead the children of Gd off the narrow path of salvation.

For the record Satan thru his tares control most religions , politics , financial and educational . They are the NWO , illuminati and many other organizations that control the masses and religion is how they control most.

 

[OzSpen]

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Quite frankly I am amazed that you think the only scripture the seven churchs in Asia had was the Revlelation of Jesus to John . I am willing to bet they had all of Paul's letters and maybe even the four Gospels by the time John wrote revelation on Patamos .

You are willing to BET! Yet you tell me you take in on faith. Which one is it? Bet or faith?

I'm waiting for your evidence of the 7 churches of Asia having access to Paul's letters. Please provide the proof by providing the evidence.

Otherwise your statement is just hot air!

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I did answer your question , you just did not like the answer . Reread my posts and you will see I answerd , did I answer point for point , no , but I answered the general premise of the statements and posting point.

You have NOT refuted what I wrote about the biblical evidence from Rev. 1 & 22.

Oz

 

[WayTooManyDaves]

NIV removed the word "begotten".

Ask yourself: How would that word be written in Chinese?

Does the Chinese language have such a word?

I don't know either way, I'm just trying to create a useful thought experiment. But let's pretend that Chinese has no such word (or character, as it were). Would it follow that the New Testament cannot be accurately translated into Chinese?

Would God create a message that cannot be faithfully transmitted to 1/5th of the world's people?

Now forget Chinese, and just stop to realize that there are undoubtedly countless languages that will not allow a 100% word-for-word translation from Koine Greek.

IMO this tells us all we need to know about the importance of a single word vs. the importance of faithfully transmitting ideas as a whole.

 

[Azadok2day]

You are willing to BET! Yet you tell me you take in on faith. Which one is it? Bet or faith?

I'm waiting for your evidence of the 7 churches of Asia having access to Paul's letters. Please provide the proof by providing the evidence.

Otherwise your statement is just hot air!

Oz

There is no doubt that Paul's letters and many more communications from the apostles went out to the newly established churches to set doctrine and clear up all discrepancies on how they should conduct themselves .

They wrote most things on papyrus which was fragile and wore out , just because we do not have many of these documents does not mean they were not copied and sent to all the news churches throughout the various countries in the roman empire. This only makes sense and is the most likely scenario .


1. From the Apostles to 170 AD:

(1) Clement of Rome; Ignarius; Polycarp:

The first period extending to 170 AD.—It does not lie within the scope of this article to recount the origin of the several books of the New Testament. This belongs properly to New Testament Introduction (which see). By the end of the 1st century all of the books of the New Testament were in existence. They were, as treasures of given churches, widely separated and honored as containing the word of Jesus or the teaching of the apostles. From the very first the authority of Jesus had full recognition in all the Christian world. The whole work of the apostles was in interpreting Him to the growing church. His sayings and His life were in part for the illumination of the Old Testament; wholly for the understanding of life and its issues. In every assembly of Christians from the earliest days He was taught as well as the Old Testament. In each church to which an epistle was written that epistle was likewise read. Paul asked that his letters be read in this way (1 Thess 5:27; Col 4:16). In this attentive listening to the exposition of some event in the life of Jesus or to the reading of the epistle of an apostle began the “authorization” of the traditions concerning Jesus and the apostolic writings. The widening of the area of the church and the departure of the apostles from earth emphasized increasingly the value of that which the writers of the New Testament left behind them. Quite early the desire to have the benefit of all possible instruction led to the interchange of Christian writings. Polycarp (110 AD ?) writes to the Philippians, “I have received letters from you and from Ignatius. You recommend me to send on yours to Syria; I shall do so either personally or by some other means. In return I send you the letter of Ignatius as well as others which I have in my hands and for which you made request. I add them to the present one; they will serve to edify your faith and perseverance” (Epistle to Phil, XIII). This is an illustration of what must have happened toward furthering a knowledge of the writings of the apostles. Just when and to what extent “collections” of our New Testament books began to be made it is impossible to say, but it is fair to infer that a collection of the Pauline epistles existed at the time Polycarp wrote to the Phil and when Ignatius wrote his seven letters to the churches of Asia Minor, i.e. about 115 AD. There is good reason to think also that the four Gospels were brought together in some places as early as this. A clear distinction, however, is to be kept in mind between “collections” and such recognition as we imply in the word “canonical.” The gathering of books was one of the steps preliminary to this. Examination of the testimony to the New Testament in this early time indicates also that it is given with no intention of framing the canonicity of New Testament books. In numerous instances only “echoes” of the thought of the epistles appear; again quotations are incomplete; both showing that Scripture words are used as the natural expression of Christian thought. In the same way the Apostolic Fathers refer to the teachings and deeds of Jesus. They witness “to the substance and not to the authenticity of the Gospels.” That this all may be more evident let us note in more detail the witness of the subapostolic age.

Link below
How did we get our Bible, who wrote it and who decided what order to put it in? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

 

[lamikin]

So you are a KJVer, is that correct?

Oz

I use the KJV. I had used it all my life until I started frequenting a bible book store near my home. The owner convinced me that I would really like a NAS because of the up-dated language. I used it for a few years and didn't like some of the changes I saw.

One being John 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declare him. (KJ)

The NAS reads:

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NAS)

According to Floyd Nolen Jones Nestle's Greek Text gives the following literal reading (NAS, AMP, NIV are similar): God, no man has seen never - the only begotten God, the One, being in the bosom of the Father, that One declared Him. (Which Version Is The Bible? Copyright 1989-1999, Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.)

Instead of "only begotten Son" (KJ) we find "only begotten God" (NAS).
That means that Jesus according to the (NAS) is a created God - a lessor god and not eternal. This Scripture is dealing with the dual nature of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus versus His deity.

He is 100% both and with readings like the NAS, people can become confused. That Jesus is merely a created being is the original Arian heresy!

Micah 5:2 speaking of the Messiah, says:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, {{{from everlasting}}}.

I should have realized the man was in the business of selling.

 

[lamikin]

Ask yourself: How would that word be written in Chinese?

Does the Chinese language have such a word?

I don't know either way, I'm just trying to create a useful thought experiment. But let's pretend that Chinese has no such word (or character, as it were). Would it follow that the New Testament cannot be accurately translated into Chinese?

Would God create a message that cannot be faithfully transmitted to 1/5th of the world's people?

Now forget Chinese, and just stop to realize that there are undoubtedly countless languages that will not allow a 100% word-for-word translation from Koine Greek.

IMO this tells us all we need to know about the importance of a single word vs. the importance of faithfully transmitting ideas as a whole.

It would be the place of a learned teacher to show them the truth.

 

[lamikin]

IMO this tells us all we need to know about the importance of a single word vs. the importance of faithfully transmitting ideas as a whole.

You honestly don't see a danger in someone saying anything they want to?

 

[WayTooManyDaves]

You honestly don't see a danger in someone saying anything they want to?

I see much greater danger in pedantry, but that's just one man's opinion.

It might be helpful for you to keep in mind that every translation has it's flaws, including the KJV.

I refuse to accept that somebody's soul is lost if they never see the correct translation of John 1:18. This is Jesus we're talking about, not the IRS!

 

[lamikin]

I see much greater danger in pedantry, but that's just one man's opinion.

It might be helpful for you to keep in mind that every translation has it's flaws, including the KJV.

I refuse to accept that somebody's soul is lost if they never see the correct translation of John 1:18. This is Jesus we're talking about, not the IRS!

We weren't talking about flaws, we were talking about the impartation about the truth of the Gospel and the need for correlation with a corroboarting source.

 

[OzSpen]

Ask yourself: How would that word be written in Chinese?

Does the Chinese language have such a word?

I don't know either way, I'm just trying to create a useful thought experiment. But let's pretend that Chinese has no such word (or character, as it were). Would it follow that the New Testament cannot be accurately translated into Chinese?

Would God create a message that cannot be faithfully transmitted to 1/5th of the world's people?

Now forget Chinese, and just stop to realize that there are undoubtedly countless languages that will not allow a 100% word-for-word translation from Koine Greek.

IMO this tells us all we need to know about the importance of a single word vs. the importance of faithfully transmitting ideas as a whole.

The issue in John 3:16 is over the translation of the Greek word, monogenes, which the KJV translates as "only begotten" and the NIV translates as "one and only". What is the meaning of this Greek word? It is derived from ginomai (I come to be, become, originate - Arndt & Gingrich) and NOT gennaw (I beget - Arndt & Gingrich). So, monogenes is not connected with begetting.

The Greek word means nothing more than "only" or "unique". It is used of the widow of Nain's "only" son (Luke 7:12, cf. Luke 9:38); Jairus's "only" daughter (Luke 8:42). What is particularly instructive is that the word is used in referring to Isaac (Heb. 11:17), because Isaac was not Abraham's only son, but he was "unique". He was God's promised son to Abraham.

So when monogenes is used in John 3:16, it is indicating that Jesus is God's Son in a unique way. There is no other son who can be God's Son like Jesus is in this unique way. There is a unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is one of the special themes of John's Gospel.

Therefore, the song and dance that has been made in this thread about "only begotten" of the KJV being "one and only" in the NIV is a non-issue. Because the word monogenes is NOT derived from begetting but is referring to the only, unique Son. Therefore, the NIV translation is a good one. In fact, when one understands the etymology of monogenes, the KJV translation gives a meaning that is not based on the origin of the word, monogenes. The etymology of a word is important.

So whether in Cantonese, Mandarin, English, German or Icelandic, the issue in translating monogenes is: How do we best translate it to mean only or unique?

Oz

 

[lamikin]

So whether in Cantonese, Mandarin, English, German or Icelandic, the issue in translating monogenes is: How do we best translate it to mean only or unique?

Oz

"only Begotten" unique inthe sense that Jesus was "Begotten" in Mary by the power of the God Almighty. No other place in the bible does anyone approch that level.

 

[revrobor]

Oz buddy, when someone has their mind made up to be a "right-fighter" they will go to any lengths to win their point. We all know it means that Jesus was the only one ever BORN the Son of God (we as "sons" of God were adopted into His family). So just let her go her way and think she's won. We have the truth and she's got her "win".

 

[IisJustMe]

We weren't talking about flaws, we were talking about the impartation about the truth of the Gospel and the need for correlation with a corroboarting source.

And the KJV is not it. What is "it" is the 5,000 manuscripts that depart from one another by only 7/10ths of one percent. You may think a departure represents imperfection, but compared to the number of transcripts we have for Homer's The Illiyad (only 64 manuscripts, none complete), any one of the works of Shakespeare (the highest total of complete manuscripts for any one play is three, and none of them agree to within five percent of one another) or any number of ancient works you'd care to name, the Bible is a dead lock for accuracy. We don't need an English translation as a "corroborating source" when it isn't as accurate from 400 manuscripts as the ESV or NASB are with the 5,000. The manuscripts themselves are so far and above anything researchers depend upon for any other confirmation in literary works, the only reason the Bible isn't considered absolutely infallible with the mountain of evidence proving its reliability is that the world will never say anything so flattering about the Bible.