But with the subject of tithing,...

[MissileMan]

Smart people actually are more apt to be self-deluded....especially when they themselves start to let the big letter, "P" as in pride overtake their souls.

I guess that means stupid people are more likely to bleat and go with the herd.

 

[flaja]

Of all your posts, this paragraph is the most telling. I hope you have a 1611 AV in your house to back that particular stance up. I also hope you know Ye Olde English well enough for the 1611 AV to make sense. However, I suppose that's a different thread subject altogether.

The English in the AKJ is not “Old English”. It is Early Modern English with some anachronisms that are necessary to make the translation more accurately reflect the grammar of the original languages. For example: the various forms of the pronoun “you” (thou, ye, you) date to several centuries prior to 1611. These pronouns were not used in everyday English in 1611; they reflect a time when English had separate forms of “you” for singular and plural, formal and informal. Both Hebrew and Koine Greek (as well as many modern languages such as German) have these multiple forms of “you”. By using these pronouns the AKJ is more grammatically accurate than any modern translation is.

 

[flaja]

Crimoney! Every bible translation has it's strong points and weak points.......but overall they communicate the accurate gospel account, and doctrinal basis of Christianity.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bible translations are not all equal.

Compare Luke 2:14 as it reads in the AKJ, NIV and NASB.
AKJ: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

NIV: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.

NASB: Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.

Critics of the AKJ often claim that King James Onlyism is a form of Calvinism. But the NIV and NASB (and also the ISV and ASV) offer no good will and they limit peace to a select group of people. How Calvinistic can you get? How many people who read these modern Bibles decide not to repent since they think they are not in the group to which God is offering salvation? Once someone is convinced that he his ineligible for salvation no amount of Bible reading can change his mind. With this one verse these modern Bibles can destroy every other verse they contain.

Col. 2:9
The AKJ uses the term Godhead, but new translations (such as the NASB) use the term Deity. The words are not the same. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary ©1967 defines Godhead as divine nature or essence : Divinity. The nature of God especially as existing in three persons. The same dictionary defines deity as the rank or essential nature of a god or supreme being. Deity is further defined as a god, or goddess and as one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful. According to Webster deity could mean Zeus, or Diana and carries no denotation of the Christian Trinity.

After Constantine gained control of the whole Roman Empire the still pagan Senate erected a triumphal arch in his honor. The arch was inscribed so as to give thanks to the deity for Constantine’s authority. Constantine lived and died as an Arian- believing that Jesus was a created being. The AKJ’s Godhead is a more precise term than deity is. The term Godhead has never been applied to anyone other than The Lord God of Israel. Deity is a generic term.

Micah 5:2
AKJ: 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.

NIV: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

NASB: But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

AKJ and NASB agree that Jesus is eternal and has no origin. The NIV says Jesus has origins and is therefore a created being.

Matthew 1:18
AKJ: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

NIV: This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

NASB: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The AKJ says Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Neither the NIV, nor the NASB uphold this doctrine in this verse.

I realize that “came together” may be a euphemism. But if the AKJ could be so blunt in 1611, why cannot modern Bibles be equally blunt now? Are they afraid of the word “virgin”?

Matthew 1:25
AKJ: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NIV: But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

NASB: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

The AKJ and NASB agree that Mary remained a virgin until after her firstborn child arrived. The NIV does not say Jesus was her first born so her status as a virgin in doubtful.

Luke 2:43
AKJ: And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

NIV: After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.

NASB: and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it,
Joseph and Mary were both unaware that Jesus had remained behind; God the Father knew where Jesus was but Mary did not so His parents did not both know He had remained behind.

Neither the NIV, nor the NASB agree with the AKJ; Both claim that Joseph was Jesus’ father. With two human parents Jesus was not God.

1 Tim. 3:16
AKJ: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

NIV: Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

NASB: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

Supposedly the differences in these translations stem from differences in how various Greek manuscripts read. But, there is a genuine doctrinal difference between the AKJ and these modern Bibles. The AKJ leaves no doubt that God was made flesh.

The NIV and NASB do not even use the term God and their use of the terms appeared and revealed could be used to support an early heresy that claimed that Jesus was an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way to two ordinary humans but He became the Son of God when God adopted him. God then “revealed” his adopted son to the world.

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bible translations are not all equal.

Compare Luke 2:14 as it reads in the AKJ, NIV and NASB.
AKJ: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

NIV: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.

NASB: Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.

Critics of the AKJ often claim that King James Onlyism is a form of Calvinism. But the NIV and NASB (and also the ISV and ASV) offer no good will and they limit peace to a select group of people. How Calvinistic can you get? How many people who read these modern Bibles decide not to repent since they think they are not in the group to which God is offering salvation? Once someone is convinced that he his ineligible for salvation no amount of Bible reading can change his mind. With this one verse these modern Bibles can destroy every other verse they contain.

Col. 2:9
The AKJ uses the term Godhead, but new translations (such as the NASB) use the term Deity. The words are not the same. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary ©1967 defines Godhead as divine nature or essence : Divinity. The nature of God especially as existing in three persons. The same dictionary defines deity as the rank or essential nature of a god or supreme being. Deity is further defined as a god, or goddess and as one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful. According to Webster deity could mean Zeus, or Diana and carries no denotation of the Christian Trinity.

After Constantine gained control of the whole Roman Empire the still pagan Senate erected a triumphal arch in his honor. The arch was inscribed so as to give thanks to the deity for Constantine’s authority. Constantine lived and died as an Arian- believing that Jesus was a created being. The AKJ’s Godhead is a more precise term than deity is. The term Godhead has never been applied to anyone other than The Lord God of Israel. Deity is a generic term.

Micah 5:2
AKJ: 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.

NIV: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

NASB: But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

AKJ and NASB agree that Jesus is eternal and has no origin. The NIV says Jesus has origins and is therefore a created being.

Matthew 1:18
AKJ: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

NIV: This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

NASB: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The AKJ says Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Neither the NIV, nor the NASB uphold this doctrine in this verse.

I realize that “came together” may be a euphemism. But if the AKJ could be so blunt in 1611, why cannot modern Bibles be equally blunt now? Are they afraid of the word “virgin”?

Matthew 1:25
AKJ: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NIV: But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

NASB: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

The AKJ and NASB agree that Mary remained a virgin until after her firstborn child arrived. The NIV does not say Jesus was her first born so her status as a virgin in doubtful.

Luke 2:43
AKJ: And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

NIV: After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.

NASB: and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it,
Joseph and Mary were both unaware that Jesus had remained behind; God the Father knew where Jesus was but Mary did not so His parents did not both know He had remained behind.

Neither the NIV, nor the NASB agree with the AKJ; Both claim that Joseph was Jesus’ father. With two human parents Jesus was not God.

1 Tim. 3:16
AKJ: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

NIV: Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

NASB: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

Supposedly the differences in these translations stem from differences in how various Greek manuscripts read. But, there is a genuine doctrinal difference between the AKJ and these modern Bibles. The AKJ leaves no doubt that God was made flesh.

The NIV and NASB do not even use the term God and their use of the terms appeared and revealed could be used to support an early heresy that claimed that Jesus was an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way to two ordinary humans but He became the Son of God when God adopted him. God then “revealed” his adopted son to the world.

Yes, but you are not supposed to take some passages literally.

 

[Eightball]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bible translations are not all equal.

Compare Luke 2:14 as it reads in the AKJ, NIV and NASB.
AKJ: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

NIV: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.

NASB: Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.

Critics of the AKJ often claim that King James Onlyism is a form of Calvinism. But the NIV and NASB (and also the ISV and ASV) offer no good will and they limit peace to a select group of people. How Calvinistic can you get? How many people who read these modern Bibles decide not to repent since they think they are not in the group to which God is offering salvation? Once someone is convinced that he his ineligible for salvation no amount of Bible reading can change his mind. With this one verse these modern Bibles can destroy every other verse they contain.

Col. 2:9
The AKJ uses the term Godhead, but new translations (such as the NASB) use the term Deity. The words are not the same. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary ©1967 defines Godhead as divine nature or essence : Divinity. The nature of God especially as existing in three persons. The same dictionary defines deity as the rank or essential nature of a god or supreme being. Deity is further defined as a god, or goddess and as one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful. According to Webster deity could mean Zeus, or Diana and carries no denotation of the Christian Trinity.

After Constantine gained control of the whole Roman Empire the still pagan Senate erected a triumphal arch in his honor. The arch was inscribed so as to give thanks to the deity for Constantine’s authority. Constantine lived and died as an Arian- believing that Jesus was a created being. The AKJ’s Godhead is a more precise term than deity is. The term Godhead has never been applied to anyone other than The Lord God of Israel. Deity is a generic term.

Micah 5:2
AKJ: 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.

NIV: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

NASB: But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

AKJ and NASB agree that Jesus is eternal and has no origin. The NIV says Jesus has origins and is therefore a created being.

Matthew 1:18
AKJ: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

NIV: This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

NASB: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The AKJ says Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Neither the NIV, nor the NASB uphold this doctrine in this verse.

I realize that “came together” may be a euphemism. But if the AKJ could be so blunt in 1611, why cannot modern Bibles be equally blunt now? Are they afraid of the word “virgin”?

Matthew 1:25
AKJ: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NIV: But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

NASB: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

The AKJ and NASB agree that Mary remained a virgin until after her firstborn child arrived. The NIV does not say Jesus was her first born so her status as a virgin in doubtful.

Luke 2:43
AKJ: And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

NIV: After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.

NASB: and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it,
Joseph and Mary were both unaware that Jesus had remained behind; God the Father knew where Jesus was but Mary did not so His parents did not both know He had remained behind.

Neither the NIV, nor the NASB agree with the AKJ; Both claim that Joseph was Jesus’ father. With two human parents Jesus was not God.

1 Tim. 3:16
AKJ: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

NIV: Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

NASB: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

Supposedly the differences in these translations stem from differences in how various Greek manuscripts read. But, there is a genuine doctrinal difference between the AKJ and these modern Bibles. The AKJ leaves no doubt that God was made flesh.

The NIV and NASB do not even use the term God and their use of the terms appeared and revealed could be used to support an early heresy that claimed that Jesus was an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way to two ordinary humans but He became the Son of God when God adopted him. God then “revealed” his adopted son to the world.

Legalism is the enemy of Christianity..

Christ's divinity is the concrete fact.......and every valid translation reveals it.

The King James.......is accurate.....yet it also has it's poor Greek interpretations, or wordings as well as the NASB, NIV, RSV, etc.

I really become very suspicious of those proclaiming the gospel and then add on the disclaimer that the KJV is the only one that's accurate.

A Baptist church I once visited that was part of the American Baptist wing......was a very troubling experience for me and my wife.........the preacher made some sound comments in his sermon,,,,,,but then went on a "rant" about how all the translations of the bible were nearly blasphemous except for the good old KJV.

Have you ever opened up the NIV or NASB, and actually read the first couple pages to see how these translations came about? I doubt it, or you wouldn't be arguing for the KJV only. The NIV and NASB were not translated by one person, but by a large group of theologians representing not one denomination but many.......so as to not have the new translations become tainted with denominational error or agendas.

The greek and aramaic parchments or scrolls used have dated even earlier than the ones used to tranlate and create the KJV. Yet, I'm not bashing the KJV, as it has been a good translation.

Where Godly men and women work together to bring an unadulterated translation, without agendas, or denominational slants.........you have a great chance at accuracy, and what God wants communicated.

Please just open up an NIV, and read the fine print before the book of Genesis starts and see for yourself the pains-taking work of hundreds of scholarly individuals that brought this translation together. It's awesome. Yet no one is saying it's perfect.

God is omnipotent........He protects His message.....because He's omnipotent.........the only time it becomes questionable, is when men and women translate with a bias, or unbiblical intent........You will not find that if you read the historical account of the compilation/development of these 19th, and 20th century translations.

 

[Eightball]

Please read this detailed explanation of how the NIV was developed/translated.
************************************
The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966. Responsibility for the version was delegated to a self-governing body of fifteen Biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation, and in 1967, the New York Bible Society (now International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project.

The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees.The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease ofreading by various groups of people. In short, perhaps no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision.
The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

 

[flaja]

Yes, but you are not supposed to take some passages literally.

Says who?

 

[flaja]

The King James.......is accurate.....yet it also has it's poor Greek interpretations, or wordings as well as the NASB, NIV, RSV, etc.

Care to give some examples in the AKJ? And on what are you basing these "poor Greek interpretations, or wordings"?

 

[5stringJeff]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bible translations are not all equal.

Correct. Some are written in more modern English and use more ancient manuscripts.

Compare Luke 2:14 as it reads in the AKJ, NIV and NASB.
AKJ: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

NIV: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.

NASB: Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.

Critics of the AKJ often claim that King James Onlyism is a form of Calvinism. But the NIV and NASB (and also the ISV and ASV) offer no good will and they limit peace to a select group of people. How Calvinistic can you get? How many people who read these modern Bibles decide not to repent since they think they are not in the group to which God is offering salvation? Once someone is convinced that he his ineligible for salvation no amount of Bible reading can change his mind. With this one verse these modern Bibles can destroy every other verse they contain.

You are committing the fallacy of not reading the Scriptures holistically. There are many other scriptures that show that God offers salvation to all, for example: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16, NASB, emphasis mine). To say that this one verse, a proclamation of the angels regarding Christ's birth, is theologically binding on God's offer of salvation, is dubious.

Col. 2:9
The AKJ uses the term Godhead, but new translations (such as the NASB) use the term Deity. The words are not the same. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary ©1967 defines Godhead as divine nature or essence : Divinity. The nature of God especially as existing in three persons. The same dictionary defines deity as the rank or essential nature of a god or supreme being. Deity is further defined as a god, or goddess and as one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful. According to Webster deity could mean Zeus, or Diana and carries no denotation of the Christian Trinity.

After Constantine gained control of the whole Roman Empire the still pagan Senate erected a triumphal arch in his honor. The arch was inscribed so as to give thanks to the deity for Constantine’s authority. Constantine lived and died as an Arian- believing that Jesus was a created being. The AKJ’s Godhead is a more precise term than deity is. The term Godhead has never been applied to anyone other than The Lord God of Israel. Deity is a generic term.

The point of the verse - indeed, one of the main points of Colossians - is to show that Jesus is, in fact, God. We could argue all day about whether the "best" term to use is God, or part of the Godhead, or Deity. But all three words make the same point: Jesus is God.

Micah 5:2
AKJ: 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.

NIV: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

NASB: But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

AKJ and NASB agree that Jesus is eternal and has no origin. The NIV says Jesus has origins and is therefore a created being.

"(w)hose origins are from of old" and "His goings forth have been from of old" have the same meaning.

Matthew 1:18
AKJ: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

NIV: This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

NASB: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The AKJ says Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Neither the NIV, nor the NASB uphold this doctrine in this verse.

I realize that “came together” may be a euphemism. But if the AKJ could be so blunt in 1611, why cannot modern Bibles be equally blunt now? Are they afraid of the word “virgin”?

The word virgin is not found in Matthew 1:18 AKJ. These verses all say the same thing.

Matthew 1:25
AKJ: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NIV: But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

NASB: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

The AKJ and NASB agree that Mary remained a virgin until after her firstborn child arrived. The NIV does not say Jesus was her first born so her status as a virgin in doubtful.

Her status as a virgin was established 8 verses ago. The NIV specifically says that they "had no union" until she gave birth to Jesus. The NIV doesn't have the word "firstborn," but that's implied since a) she was a virgin, and b) there weren't two virgin births, each of which would have been a miraculous event.

Luke 2:43
AKJ: And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

NIV: After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.

NASB: and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it,
Joseph and Mary were both unaware that Jesus had remained behind; God the Father knew where Jesus was but Mary did not so His parents did not both know He had remained behind.

Neither the NIV, nor the NASB agree with the AKJ; Both claim that Joseph was Jesus’ father. With two human parents Jesus was not God.

Luke 2:41, AKJ says "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." (emphasis mine) So, according to your logic, the AKJ also denies that Jesus was God. OR, all three translations acknowledge that Jesus was God (as I showed above) and all three show Joseph as Jesus' earthly father, who, while not a physical anscestor of Jesus, still performed the role of father to Jesus in His childhood.

1 Tim. 3:16
AKJ: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

NIV: Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

NASB: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

Supposedly the differences in these translations stem from differences in how various Greek manuscripts read. But, there is a genuine doctrinal difference between the AKJ and these modern Bibles. The AKJ leaves no doubt that God was made flesh.

The NIV and NASB do not even use the term God and their use of the terms appeared and revealed could be used to support an early heresy that claimed that Jesus was an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way to two ordinary humans but He became the Son of God when God adopted him. God then “revealed” his adopted son to the world.

Again, holistically, there is no doubt from reading the NASB or the NIV that Jesus is God.

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bible translations are not all equal.

Correct. Some are written in more modern English and use more ancient manuscripts.

Satan has blinded you to the real issue. When I say Bible translations are not all equal, it has nothing to do with the age of the language or the age of the manuscripts involved. It has to do with matters of doctrine, as the examples I gave indicate. If you cannot understand this fact, then you cannot understand God.

Compare Luke 2:14 as it reads in the AKJ, NIV and NASB.
AKJ: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

NIV: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.

NASB: Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.

Critics of the AKJ often claim that King James Onlyism is a form of Calvinism. But the NIV and NASB (and also the ISV and ASV) offer no good will and they limit peace to a select group of people. How Calvinistic can you get? How many people who read these modern Bibles decide not to repent since they think they are not in the group to which God is offering salvation? Once someone is convinced that he his ineligible for salvation no amount of Bible reading can change his mind. With this one verse these modern Bibles can destroy every other verse they contain.

You are committing the fallacy of not reading the Scriptures holistically.

One bad verse ruins an entire translation because it gives an excuse to doubt what God says and means. Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

 

[Eightball]

Satan has blinded you to the real issue. When I say Bible translations are not all equal, it has nothing to do with the age of the language or the age of the manuscripts involved. It has to do with matters of doctrine, as the examples I gave indicate. If you cannot understand this fact, then you cannot understand God.



One bad verse ruins an entire translation because it gives an excuse to doubt what God says and means. Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Legalists often use the old, "Satan" defense. It's sad, cause God created us to not Coat-check our brains or ability to reason at the door, when we study scripture.
.......
Paul himself, as well as other Apostles of the early church warned us against Judiazers.........No what those folks did or said? That told other believers that if you don't follow "A", you were not true believers in Jesus.....cause "B" didn't follow the Law to the very "jot and tittle".

One of the major problems in the church nowadays, is that we, believers have this tendency to think that how we came to understand or follow Christ......via scripture, is exactly the way all others must come to this Spiritual epiphany too.

Some use the old, "You must only read the KJV" or you will be misled........Some even claim that the NASB, or NIV is the only translation to follow.

Bottom line with any or all translations, is how do they "deal" with Jesus!!!!!!! Was He God incarnate? Was He born of a virgin? Is He/Jesus the only way or means of human salvation, conversion? If any of these translations obscure or deny these basic tenets.......then they are to be avoided. That's why I mentioned the New World Translations by Watch Tower(Jehovah's Witnesses), and the Jeffersonian Bible by Thomas Jefferson.

Some of the later translations, were attempts to replace the old 17th century english vernacular/grammar with a more nowadays form so that folks could more easily understand and enjoy and get out of God's Word/scripture what God wanted.

The NIV, NASB, ASB, RS, were attempts at this. To give the average literate man of that time of publication or tranlation the best possible access to God's scripture in an understandable, accurate form.

It is understood by theologians of all the denominations and non-denominations that certain grammatical, and word or meaning interpretations have been stronger or weaker with all these translations. In fact the NIV is just the latest attempt to rectify this, but still it isn't perfect.

Now when I say "perfect" I'm not referring to the "gist" or message that these translations are communicating. I'm referring to the ability of translators to interpret the most accurate meaning that the original authors intended via Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew. Much difficulty arises as one language can have so many meanings for a word, while another language may have so few. So the translators with the cooperation of theologians/scholars try to work together to come to an accurate idea of the intentions of the author's use of a particular word, or group of words in it's useage in a particular verse, or verses.

The problem arises with many Christians, as they take verses to heart in ways and intentions that support an inward agenda.....that may not be, "God Inspired".

There's been and old adage around for many years......."You can make the bible say whatever you want it to say.". Why? Because the bible is filled with information that comes or is presented in Allegory, Metaphorical, precise doctrinal teaching, and eye witness reporting.

Now it is our responsibility to interpret scripture in cooperation with the indwelling Holy Spirit, that was promised to all who are true believers. This "helper", "counseler", was promised by Christ near the time of His Assension to all of His believers.

As Paul emphatically said, " Unregenerate/unconverted man cannot understand that which is Spiritual.". It is the job of the indwelling Spirit, in cooperation with man's mind, and will to help many understand scripture.

This again boils down to the earlier argument/debate on valid translations. How does the translation deal with Jesus? Does the translation say that Jesus is a mere man, or prophet..... and nothing more? Did Jesus truly get crucified. Did Jesus actually beat death, and resurrect from the dead? Did Jesus actually ascend to heaven and now sits at the right hand of God?

If a particular translations obscures the true nature of Christ, His intended mission, and the accurate relational condition of man, both regenerate and unregenerate, then it's a false Gospel. Will you find that in the KJV, NIV, NASB, ASB, RS, or even the New King James?

Absolutely not.
***
To pick apart verses between various translations is to not look at the whole message in total.....How does that translation deal with Jesus!

Jesus is the center of God's gospel...........Nothing else is. Even the O.T. was guiding man towards coming hope, the Messiah........

Cults have done everything they can to destory/diminish Jesus's true divinity as God incarnate.
*******
Now within the believing church itself we have a more insidious, and Satan inspired angle.......We now start a "fact finding" committee of one or thousands to pick apart any and all translations except one, leading to the detriment of all or most present day believers.

Churches split over many things......i.e The color of the carpet to be installed in the sanctuary, the amount of times communion is served in a year or month, are we the elect saved by no means or actions of ourselves or do we in some way volitionally cooperate with God in coming to converstion(Arminism v.s. Calvinism), do you depend on the NASB, or whatever for your bible reading, and devotions...........the petty debates go on and on.

All along, God is looking down at us little feeble, and weak, vessels made of dust, pondering and wondering when we will get the "major point"! "My Son Is The Way!" He's revealed My nature through and through during His 33 year tenure on planet earth.".

Now you're scrapping over what translation is the "one".....and not concentrating on just getting the "core" of my message...........Alpha and Omega......Beginning and Last........The same yesterday, today and forever.......Before Abraham, I AM!(Jesus).

And here you are........scrapping over which text is inspired by Me? Well, which text tells who My Son is accurately? Which text conveys clearly that My Son and I are One.......? Which text conveys that my Son was pre-existent, and though born a virgin, was and has always existed before all time......in both eternity past, and future? Which text says clearly that my Son is the One and only means to bridge the gap of sinful man and My Holiness.........? Which text clear states that only My Son Jesus was capable and worthy via blameless life and blood, to attone for my judicial wrath and judgement upon all mankind(Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.").

Well, in a short nutshell the KJV, NASB, NIV, and many others have not fallen short in clearly communicating those facts!

Nit-picking meanings of verb useages between tranlations is totally losing sight of the Gospel message, and also a serious, flawed, and dividing factor not authored by God, but by man alone or in cooperation with the enemy(Satan) of man. Christians can become caught-up in this delusion or "hot trail" of pursuit, and totally lose sight of their God given gifts and calling.

I personally know some Christians that got into the biblical numeralogy(mispelled?). They are no longer hung-up on that pursuit, as they realized that their testimony to others was gradually diminishing as they were losing sight of the Gospel...........=Jesus.

 

[5stringJeff]

Satan has blinded you to the real issue. When I say Bible translations are not all equal, it has nothing to do with the age of the language or the age of the manuscripts involved. It has to do with matters of doctrine, as the examples I gave indicate. If you cannot understand this fact, then you cannot understand God.

One bad verse ruins an entire translation because it gives an excuse to doubt what God says and means. Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

It is extremely presumptive and arrogant of you to say that just because I use a different Bible translation, I cannot understand God, and/or I have been blinded by the devil. In fact, the only people whom the devil has blinded are those who do not believe in Christ. But, since you are apparently smart enough to know my theology and doctrine, in exactly which doctrines do I supposedly err by reading the NASB (my primary study Bible)?

 

[Eightball]

It is extremely presumptive and arrogant of you to say that just because I use a different Bible translation, I cannot understand God, and/or I have been blinded by the devil. In fact, the only people whom the devil has blinded are those who do not believe in Christ. But, since you are apparently smart enough to know my theology and doctrine, in exactly which doctrines do I supposedly err by reading the NASB (my primary study Bible)?

Jeff: I think we submitted our response almost simultaneously, and as a result mine is just before your most recent one.

This splitting of "hairs" over bible text is not the work of God, but actually is a "dividing" factor in the Body of Christ, brings to mind those scriptural warnings by Paul and others in the N.T. to be careful, of these folks.

Messages to the Body should not bring confusion, and doubt, unless that particular Body is in the throws of being misled and does need to be "put straight" so-to-speak.

In the case of the individual to whom we both are addressing, I really think that we are dealing with one who is causing division. It's healthy as the Bereans did to question all messages, but it isn't healthy to create a "stir" among bonafide believers to the point that they may even start to doubt the very core of their conversion; especially when this person can't support that all the newer translations are altering the accuracy of or intent of the heart of God's gospel message. Namely, the true nature of Christ, His mission on earth, His actual relationship, and identity, etc.

Those that promote division need to be told they are. They may go off believing that they "alone" are the only ones that hold the "key" and the rest of us are duped by "Satan". In actuality, Satan works best with those that know all things best, and have a mindset to make it known to all others. In essence, it's pride......and it's a real insidious malady when a Christian is inflicted with it.

 

[flaja]

Jeff: I think we submitted our response almost simultaneously, and as a result mine is just before your most recent one.

This splitting of "hairs" over bible text is not the work of God, but actually is a "dividing" factor in the Body of Christ, brings to mind those scriptural warnings by Paul and others in the N.T. to be careful, of these folks.

When it comes to a legitimate translation of Scripture and correct doctrine, the dispute is not “dividing the Body of Christ”, which is the standard defense of people who think they are part of that Body, but who actually refuse to follow God. The dispute is a matter of declaring the legitimate Christian Faith to the ungodly.

It is not splitting hairs because there are no hairs to split. There can be no disputes regarding doctrine in the Body of Christ. In such situations one of the parties to the dispute is not a member of the Body of Christ.

 

[5stringJeff]

When it comes to a legitimate translation of Scripture and correct doctrine, the dispute is not “dividing the Body of Christ”, which is the standard defense of people who think they are part of that Body, but who actually refuse to follow God. The dispute is a matter of declaring the legitimate Christian Faith to the ungodly.

It is not splitting hairs because there are no hairs to split. There can be no disputes regarding doctrine in the Body of Christ. In such situations one of the parties to the dispute is not a member of the Body of Christ.

And again, I ask you, which doctrines do we supposedly not follow that cause us to be outside of the Body of Christ?

 

[5stringJeff]

In the case of the individual to whom we both are addressing, I really think that we are dealing with one who is causing division. It's healthy as the Bereans did to question all messages, but it isn't healthy to create a "stir" among bonafide believers to the point that they may even start to doubt the very core of their conversion; especially when this person can't support that all the newer translations are altering the accuracy of or intent of the heart of God's gospel message. Namely, the true nature of Christ, His mission on earth, His actual relationship, and identity, etc.

Those that promote division need to be told they are. They may go off believing that they "alone" are the only ones that hold the "key" and the rest of us are duped by "Satan". In actuality, Satan works best with those that know all things best, and have a mindset to make it known to all others. In essence, it's pride......and it's a real insidious malady when a Christian is inflicted with it.

I'm in total agreement!

 

[flaja]

And again, I ask you, which doctrines do we supposedly not follow that cause us to be outside of the Body of Christ?

If you accept as valid a translation such as the NIV or NASB, then you accept the doctrine that Jesus Christ is not God. This puts you outside of the Body of Christ.

 

[5stringJeff]

If you accept as valid a translation such as the NIV or NASB, then you accept the doctrine that Jesus Christ is not God. This puts you outside of the Body of Christ.

That's a leap of logic wider than the Grand Canyon. Both the NIV and the NASB, as well as most other English translations, teach that Jesus is God. Take one of the most straightforward such verses, Phillipians 2:5-7:

KJV 1611: "Let this minde bee in you, which was also in Christ Iesus: Who being in the forme of God, thought it not robbery to bee equall with God: But made himselfe of no reputation, and tooke vpon him the forme of a seruant, and was made in the likenesse of men."

NASB: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

ibid, NIV: Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

The bolded portions above are found in other forms in other Bibles, such as:
ASV: "Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God..."
Amplified Bible: "Christ Jesus: [Let Him be your example in humility:] Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God]..."
Holman Christian Standard: "Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God..."
New Living Translation: "the same that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God..."
English Standard Version: "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God..."
Contemporary English Version "Christ was truly God..."
Good News Translation: "the one that Christ Jesus had: He always had the nature of God..."
New Century Translation: "Christ himself was like God in everything..."
Message paraphrase : "He had equal status with God..."
KJV: "Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God..."
NKJV: "Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God..."
RSV: "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God..."
NRSV: "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God..."

That would be 14 post-1611 translations, which constitute the vast majority of Bible translations sold today, which do indeed confirm the doctrine that Jesus Christ is God. While you are correct in stating that those who deny the deity of Christ are outside the body, you are grossly incorrect in stating that post-1611 Bibles teach this heresy.

 

[flaja]

The bolded portions above are found in other forms in other Bibles, such as:
ASV: "Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God..."
Amplified Bible: "Christ Jesus: [Let Him be your example in humility:] Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God]..."
Holman Christian Standard: "Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God..."
New Living Translation: "the same that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God..."
English Standard Version: "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God..."
Contemporary English Version "Christ was truly God..."
Good News Translation: "the one that Christ Jesus had: He always had the nature of God..."
New Century Translation: "Christ himself was like God in everything..."
Message paraphrase : "He had equal status with God..."
KJV: "Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God..."
NKJV: "Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God..."
RSV: "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God..."
NRSV: "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God..."

I will refrain from pointing out your obvious misunderstandings and errors and ask for verse references.

 

[5stringJeff]

I will refrain from pointing out your obvious misunderstandings and errors and ask for verse references.

Although I thought it was clear from my post, all of those verses are the end of Phillipians 2:5 through Phillipians 2:6.

And I'm very interested to see where my "obvious misunderstandings and errors" are.