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

[HantsUK]

It was "authorized" by King James to eliminate the feuding among several groups who were working on English translations.

Why did the Pilgrim Fathers leave England? How is this connected to the KJV? King James was in power at the time, and was the reason to leave England - to find somewhere with religious freedom. King Janes persecuted Baptists (and other Separatist). So, it is doubly ironic for American Baptists to defend the KJV. And why I use the term AV. It is also strange that Americans use the term KJV while here in the UK, we call this translation the AV.

 

[Skala]

That's correct. Although I'm sure there are some KJVOnlyers that believe God "authorized" it.

That's what I was trying to draw out

 

[ronshua]

Greetings Saints , in truth " the Authorized Version was a move by King IAMES ( the "J" came along some 180 years later) to consolidate POWER for the Church of England . Authorized by Iames , calling it NEW or authorized and not a remake of Scripture in print is a travesty .

The 47 scholars "translating" the Kings pet project , changed ( what we call the book of James ) to the book of Iames , losing forever the true name of "Jesus" half-brother .

Overlooking the undisputed thousands of errors in the first printings ( 1611) & those since , I personally regard the KJV a very good VERSION of Scripture .

 

[lamikin]

I didn't miss the point, I just pointed out that the article contradicts itself.

How does it contradict itself and where did the section on Hebrews ever express "unigue"? Here it is again:


"Will you ask: “And what of Hebrews 11:17, If monogenes means only begotten, then of whom was Ishmael sprung?” Truly Isaac and Ishmael were both begotten, but only Isaac was the Son of the promise; and for this reason Paul added, “In Isaac thy seed be called”. For an example, if I say, “This is my only born child that lives with me”, you would not think I have lied, if I afterward would tell you his brother lived in a far country. Thus the question is not was Isaac begotten, but in what since was he ‘only’, and it is hence: he is the lone child of the promise.
Hebrews 11:17-18 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:"


Yes you did miss the point of Hebrews 11:17,18. You said in post #88:

The article is wrong. Monogenes is used to refer to Isaac being the "only begotten" son of Abraham (Heb 11:17, see below), but as we all know, Isaac is not the only begotten son of Abraham. Ishmael was born before Isaac, and also, Abraham had many sons after Isaac.
So not only is Isaac not the first born, he's also not the 'only' born of Abraham.

You negelected to understand that what is expressed in Hebrews 11:17-18 is a spiritual truth about the promise not how its understood culturally. You do understand what the "promise" refers to don't you?

Also, the fact that Isaac is called the monogenes of Abraham proves that the NIV's wordage that Christ is the "one and only" son is viable.

Not according to this:

Greek word that is translated BEGOTTEN is in reference to Jesus Christ. The other word is ‘gennao’.
Gennao (1080 in the Strong’s) and it retains the following meaning. To procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate. It is translated as such in the scriptures:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, make, spring.

 

[lamikin]

Just have one question: Who authorized it?

Dr. John Renyolds (Rainolds) who was the president of Corpus Christi College at Oxford suggested to King James is 1604 that there was need of a translation which all the people could understand and read. King James approved it, but, he was not the one that came up with the idea..

It began when approximately a thousand ministers sent a petition, which later came to be known as the "Millenary Petition", to King James. It was believed that a new translation was needed because the "Great Bible" of 1539 was a very corrupt translation.

King James was raised up with the Geneva Bible but he was always troubled about the notes or comments contained in that translation.

It was finally agreed that a new translation true to the original Greek text would be made and it would not have any footnotes or comments.

King James accepted their request, but he did not initiate the procedure.

 

[lamikin]

So which Greek text did John Wycliffe and Augustine of Hippo use?

Oz

John 3:16 in Wycliff's bible:

"For God louede so the world, that he ȝaf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf."

Did you catch that Oz?

"oon bigetun sone"

"BIGETUN" or as it is rendered in the KJV "BEGOTTEN"

That is , very!

 

[OzSpen]

John 3:16 in Wycliff's bible:

"For God louede so the world, that he ȝaf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf."

Did you catch that Oz?

"oon bigetun sone"

"BIGETUN" or as it is rendered in the KJV "BEGOTTEN"

That is , very!

That's a red herring logical fallacy for your answer.

My question was:

So which Greek text did John Wycliffe and Augustine of Hippo use?

I did NOT ask, what was John Wycliffe's translation. Don't you understand the English question that I asked?

Oz

 

[lamikin]

That's a red herring logical fallacy for your answer.

My question was:

"So which Greek text did John Wycliffe and Augustine of Hippo use?"

I did NOT ask, what was John Wycliffe's translation. Don't you understand the English question that I asked?

Oz

How can the two not go hand in hand? Don't get snotty with me by asking if I didn't understand the English. I just simply pointed out how Wycliff rendered John 3:16.

And what would be the importance of what John Wycliff used anyway since it was not even used in the translation of the KJB? We were talking about the KJB were we not, so who is flinging red herrings?

 

[OzSpen]

How can the two not go hand in hand? Don't get snotty with me by asking if I didn't understand the English. I just simply pointed out how Wycliff rendered John 3:16.

And what would be the importance of what John Wycliff used anyway since it was not even used in the translation of the KJB? We were talking about the KJB were we not, so who is flinging red herrings?

You still have not answered my question regarding which Greek NT Wycliffe and Augustine used of the NT. You are defending your red herring.

So, does that mean that you don't know the answer?

Oz

 

[lamikin]

You still have not answered my question regarding which Greek NT Wycliffe and Augustine used of the NT. You are defending your red herring.

So, does that mean that you don't know the answer?

Oz

Wycliff used Jerome's latin Vulgate in making his bible. Since we don't have many examples of 3rd. century witnesses it is not clear what Augustine would have used.

 

[Francess]

"Begotten" is a taboo word for some reason.

 

[IisJustMe]

Yes it does take on the term ensnarement as in a trap by Satan to ensnare the souls of good Christians with the lie of the rapture doctrine , this is Gods warning and if you don't see this I don't know what else I can do to show you the truth .

Don't worry about it. I'm not.

 

[OzSpen]

Wycliff used Jerome's latin Vulgate in making his bible. Since we don't have many examples of 3rd. century witnesses it is not clear what Augustine would have used.

You are correct that John Wyclif (plus a couple of his associates) translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate. See, ‘The Work of John Wyclif and its Impact’ and ‘John Wycliffe’.

The first English Bible translated from the Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) was the William Tyndale Bible, but he only completed about half of the OT before his martyrdom. For the NT, he used Erasmus’s 3rd edition of the Greek. He also used the Latin and German NTs.

Here is one view of the development of the Latin Vulgate. This article indicates that

Augustine says that anyone who got hold of a Greek manuscript and thought he knew Greek and Latin would venture on a translation. These versions originated in Africa and not from Rome, else they had been more authoritative. Besides, the first two centuries of the Rom church were rather Greek; the earliest Christian literature of Rome is Greek, its bishops bear Greek names, its earliest liturgy was Greek. When the church of Italy became Lat-speaking--probably at the end of the 3rd century--the provincialisms of the African version rendered it unfit for the more polished Romans, and so recensions were called for. Scholars now recognize a European type of Old Latin text.

Since Augustine’s knowledge of Greek was not extensive, he seems to have relied on the Old Latin versions of the Bible.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

"Begotten" is a taboo word for some reason.

It's not a well-known word in English of the 21st century. However, the Greek, monogenes, in John 3:16 can be translated as only begotten, one and only, unique. That's the etymology of the Greek word.

So to say that "only begotten" is the only correct translation of the word in John 3:16 is not correct, based on the Greek lexicons and word studies.

Oz

 

[lamikin]

Since Augustine’s knowledge of Greek was not extensive, he seems to have relied on the Old Latin version of the bible.Oz

There is every probablity that is true since Jerome's Vulgate was just a revision of the Old Latin.

 

[wcbbplyr]

Oh, and look at the famous John 3:16 verse from the NIV Version:



NIV removed the word "begotten".

Look begotten also carries the meaning of " only promised." So, if you remove the word then Jesus is NOT the promised. If that is true, then the cross was in vain because the Bible promised us a perfect, only promised God who would come to save ALL from sin.

 

[OzSpen]

Look begotten also carries the meaning of " only promised." So, if you remove the word then Jesus is NOT the promised. If that is true, then the cross was in vain because the Bible promised us a perfect, only promised God who would come to save ALL from sin.

It is not as simple as that and your conclusion could be a stretched implication.

The Greek word translated "only begotten" (KJV) of "one and only" (NIV), is monogenes. On p. 741 of Buchsel's Greek exposition of monogenes in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4 (Eerdmans 1967), Buchsel's word study states:

“It is not wholly clear whether monogenes in John denotes also the birth or begetting from God; it probably does, John calls Jesus ho gennetheis ek tou theou [the one born of God], 1 John 5:18. Though many will not accept this, he here understands the concept of sonship in terms of begetting. For him to be the Son of God is not just to be the recipient of God's love. It is to be begotten of God. This is true both of believers and also of Jesus.http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=61053017#_ftn1 For this reason monogenes probably includes also begetting of God (p. 741, my emphasis in bold).

In his footnote at this point,Buchsel states,

One should not refer the monogenes to the virgin birth of Jesus..., for the pre-existent as well as the historical Jesus is the son of God (p. 741, n 20).

While Buchel does prefer the translation of monogenes as referring to the begetting from God, he tempers it with, "It is not wholly clear".

Arndt & Gingrich in their Greek lexicon also are not as sure as you want it to be. They state that the meaning of monogenes is of an only son or daughter (Heb 11:17; Luke 8:42) - also unique in kind.

In the Johannine literature monogenes is used only of Jesus. The meanings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.... But some ... prefer to regard monogenes as somewhat heightened in meaning in John and 1 John to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on gennasthai ek theou [born of God] (John 1:13 etc) (Zondervan 1957, p. 529).

On the basis of the study of these Greek exegetes, it is NOT definitive that monogenes should be translated as "only begotten" and for someone to say that the NIV's translation of "one and only" Son in John 3:16 is wrong, does not line up with what the exegetes are concluding.

If Buchel can conclude that it is "not wholly clear" and Arndt & Gingrich say that in the Johannine writings, the meanings of " only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here", but "some prefer" the "somewhat heightened" meaning in John's writings of "only-begotten or begotten of the Only One", indicates that those intensely involved in Greek exegesis are not absolutely convinced that the one and only meaning of monogenes in John 3:16 is "only begotten".

Oz

 

[wcbbplyr]

I'm glad your not like some on here who seem to post without any research done. I think it is important to say that begotten can, as you state, refer to sonship. Again, if you were to take that approach, you would still be describing "begotten" as a word that deals with the subject of who Jesus is- the One who took away the punishment of sin.In my view, to leave that out would be leaving out the reason why Jesus died. Let me be clear. I am NOT saying you will go to Hell for reading a version besides the KJV. I just feel the KJV is a better translation.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm glad your not like some on here who seem to post without any research done. I think it is important to say that begotten can, as you state, refer to sonship. Again, if you were to take that approach, you would still be describing "begotten" as a word that deals with the subject of who Jesus is- the One who took away the punishment of sin.In my view, to leave that out would be leaving out the reason why Jesus died. Let me be clear. I am NOT saying you will go to Hell for reading a version besides the KJV. I just feel the KJV is a better translation.

So what are your criteria for determining a "better translation"?

Oz

 

[wcbbplyr]

I fell that the KJV does a better job in keeping the meaning from the original Greek ( and other languages). Please understand me. I'm not trying to put down the Bible of your choice. like I said before you are not going to Hell for reading another version of the Bible