1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

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

Modern Versions and the Person of Jesus Christ

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, May 12, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some very important readings found in the King James Version, while lacking in some of the Modern Versions. Relating to the Person of Jesus Christ

    Isaiah 7:14 – “virgin” has been changed to “young woman”. Studies done on the use and meaning of “almah”, by Drs. Robert Dick Wilson, Edward J Young and Edward Hindson, have shown beyond any doubt, that Isaiah meant “virgin” here.

    Matthew 1:25 – “firstborn” has been removed, which as I have already shown, is the work of Matthew. Its absence weakens that Truth that Mary did have other children after the birth of Jesus Christ

    Mark 1:1 – “The Son of God”, has been removed. This Title of Jesus Christ pertains to His Divine nature, like “The Son of Man”, to His human nature.

    Luke 1:35 , - the two words, “of thee” have been removed. This does not only speak of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, where the Greek is in the feminine, singular. But, also, by using the preposition “ek” (lit, “out of”), Luke is showing that true “human nature” of Jesus Christ, which was derived from Mary. The early Gnostics rejected the reality of Christ’s “humanity”, saying that He simply “passed through the womb of Mary, as water passes through a tube, without actually partaking of the tube itself”. For this to be true, we would expect the preposition to be “dia” here.

    Luke 22:44 (with 43), these two verses have been removed from here. Verse 44 reads: “and being in an agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground”. Another very clear testimony to the true “human nature” of Jesus Christ.

    John 3:13 , the words, “Who is in Heaven” has been removed. Here we have Jesus is conversation with Nicodemus while on earth, and at the same time, He is said to be in heaven. Clearly shows that Jesus did at times exercise His Divine Attributes. In this case, Omnipresence. Another powerful testimony to the true Deity of Jesus Christ.

    John 9:35 , where “The Son of God” has been changed to “the Son of Man”. It has been argued by some, that Jesus no where calls Himself “The Son of God”. With this change, the texts get thinner.

    Acts 8:37 , this whole verse, where the eunuch testifies to the Deity of Jesus Christ, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God”, has been removed.

    1 Corinthians 10:9 , where “Christ” has been changed to “Lord”. The former is very clear to the Deity of Jesus, since Paul here refers the words to Numbers 21:5, where it has “YHWH”. The latter reading could easily be used for the Father, without any reference to Jesus.

    1 Corinthians 15:47 , where “the Lord from Heaven” has become “from heaven”. This reading gave rise to the heresies that teach that Jesus Christ appeared on earth as a grown man. Another very clear text that teaches, a) Christ’s Deity, b) His humanity, c) the two natures, d) Christ’s eternal existence e) His Virgin Birth. All in this one reading

    Colossians 1:14 , the words “through His blood” have been removed.

    1 Timothy 3:16 , where the word “God” has been changed to “He” or “He who”, a clear corruption to remove any testimony to the Deity of Jesus Christ. It should be noted, that the Revised Version of 1881-1885, rejected “theos”, because it was challenged by Dr G Vance Smith, who was a Unitarian on the Committee. Dr John Burgon has done an excellent defence of “theos”, in almost 100 pages, and his work has never been successfully challenged, over 100 years later, and I very much doubt that it ever will.

    1 John 5:7 , this famous verse for the Holy Trinity has been corrupted. Its presence alone on grammatical reasons is beyond any doubt to any honest, unbiased mind. I, myself have investigated this verse for about seven years, and have no doubt even from the external evidence, that the Apostle John wrote these words as found in the KJV.
     
    #1 icthus, May 12, 2005
  2. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Isaiah 7:14 – “virgin” has been changed to “young woman”. Studies done on the use and meaning of “almah”, by Drs. Robert Dick Wilson, Edward J Young and Edward Hindson, have shown beyond any doubt, that Isaiah meant “virgin” here."

    Icthus, you paint with a pretty broad brush. To my knowledge, the RSV & NRSV (of which I personally am not a fan) are among the few (and perhaps the only) MV's to use "young woman" in this verse. I checked several other MV's, including the NIV, NKJV, NASB, and NLT, all of which use "virgin".

    In your listing of verses, one is left with the impression that no MV uses "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. This is simply untrue.

    I suspect that if I were to examine the other verses quoted my findings would be similar.
     
    #2 LarryN, May 12, 2005
  3. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
     
    #3 Ransom, May 12, 2005
  4. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, if you were not so quick to judge, you may have seen from my OP, that I say: "while lacking in some of the Modern Versions. Relating to the Person of Jesus Christ" Do you know what the word "some" means? The readings that I have given are not to show that each and every MV is corrupted in each place. But, that some versions are so corrupted here are there. The reading are after the KJV. That is my point.
     
    #4 icthus, May 12, 2005
  5. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, if you were not so quick to judge, you may have seen from my OP, that I say: "while lacking in some of the Modern Versions. Relating to the Person of Jesus Christ" Do you know what the word "some" means? The readings that I have given are not to show that each and every MV is corrupted in each place. But, that some versions are so corrupted here are there. The reading are after the KJV. That is my point. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, thank you, I do know what "some" means. Do you know what "impression" means? I simply believe you could be more upfront & honest in your presentation. If your first example refers to the RSV & NRSV only, why not say so?
     
    #5 LarryN, May 12, 2005
  6. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, if you were not so quick to judge, you may have seen from my OP, that I say: "while lacking in some of the Modern Versions. Relating to the Person of Jesus Christ" Do you know what the word "some" means? The readings that I have given are not to show that each and every MV is corrupted in each place. But, that some versions are so corrupted here are there. The reading are after the KJV. That is my point. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, thank you, I do know what "some" means. Do you know what "impression" means? I simply believe you could be more upfront & honest in your presentation. If your first example refers to the RSV & NRSV only, why not say so? </font>[/QUOTE]No imression was intended :D
     
    #6 icthus, May 12, 2005
  7. LarryN

    LarryN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, Icthus, are you being thoughtlessly deceptive then? I suppose that's preferable to operating with intent.
     
    #7 LarryN, May 12, 2005
  8. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
     
    #8 icthus, May 12, 2005
  9. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    1
    Does this now mean that The Bishops' Bible is now no longer considered to be in the perfect line of Bibles produced before the KJV? And what about the fact that the NKJV also leaves out those two little words? Does this mean that the NKJV is different from the KJV? And does this mean that the KJV added to the Word of God?

    Icthus, your posts and your line of reasoning are becoming more and more muddled and befuddled all the time. You're painting yourself into one of those KJVO corners from which there is no escape. Be sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot trying to get out of this one...

    [​IMG]
     
    #9 Keith M, May 13, 2005
  10. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keith, you are right, the NKJV has even omitted the words in Luke 1:35, something I noticed many years ago, but don't know why they did this. I still do not class this version with the likes of the NIV, RSV, ESV, NASB, etc
     
    #10 icthus, May 13, 2005
  11. Michael52

    Michael52 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is simply no other english Bible version that is identical to the KJV. When are you people going to wake up, smell the coffee and realize this?

    When will these translators (so-called) of other BV's understand that they have yet to produce a BV that is a textually faithful to the KJV?

    When one wants to read the same verbage which the KJV translators produced, no other BV will do! Never has, never will. Selah. ;)
     
    #11 Michael52, May 14, 2005
  12. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope you are not arguing here, that it is 100% error free?
     
    #12 icthus, May 14, 2005
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why do you set up the KJV as the standard by with all other bibles are judged? Why must a bible be identical to the KJV to be correct? By what authority do you establish the KJV as the only authority? If the KJV is the only authority, and any bible that is not identical to the KJV is incorrect, where was the Inspired, Preserved word of God prior to 1611?
    Same question. Why should a translation be faithful to the KJV? Why shouldn't it be faithful to the Hebrew and Greek which God inspired?
    Why do you elevate the English of the KJV above all other languages including the Hebrew and Greek which God inspired? Are you an "English Only" racist?
     
    #13 TCassidy, May 14, 2005
  14. Michael52

    Michael52 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Without immediately jumping to the conclusion that this was written by a diehard KJVO, take a deep breath and re-read this again. (Yeah, I guess there are a few "KJVO-type" embellishments)

    What I wrote is largely true (sans embellishments), but is given from a tongue-in-cheek perspective. No other BV is identical to the KJV. Why should it be? Some KJVO's believe that other BVs differ because of some "demonic" plot, lack of intelligence or lack of scholorship by the translators of other BVs. I hope and pray they can get past this. I also hope that people on the other side of the issue don't let there own biases and prejudices cloud their objectivity and they think things through before reacting.

    Maybe I've been following this issue so long that I sometimes find it incredulous when people think they can come here and bring some "unknown or startling" revelation that most (or at least many) Bible students are totally unaware. I guess I just need to "chill-out" and realize that others need to go through the same "rehash" of these issues.

    The issues of the difference between the KJV and other BV is, for me, a good thing. I have learned so much more about God's word in taking an objective, hopefully calm, look at the arguments.

    I pray that everyone, me especially, continues to receive perspective and beneficial instruction. [​IMG]
     
    #14 Michael52, May 14, 2005
  15. Michael52

    Michael52 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Addendum:

    I figured my attempt at "light-hearted" sarcasm would have been more transparent. But, I guess when people don't know a poster and don't have access to voice tone or body language over the net, a person needs better writing skills to pull this off - or maybe use more graemlins?
     
    #15 Michael52, May 14, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...