All Claims of The Son's Deity

[mikesw]

This is NOT meant as a personal attack on anyone who holds a modern version. It's just for educational purposes, equipping all serious Bible students w/ something they should be aware of. What each decides at the end of the day, it's between those believers, & God. We're supposed to watch out for each other. That's my only intention here.

New Age Bible Versions – Gail Riplinger​

New Age Bible Versions is the all-time, international best selling book, proving the perfection of the King James Bible and demonstrating the corruption of the ESV, NIV, NKJV, Legacy Standard, Amplified, Message, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, NET, GNB, Living, Phillips, New Jerusalem, New Century, and all modern versions.

New Age Bible Versions – Gail Riplinger

​

It hardly is a personal attack against anyone. The content of is unsupported ideas or just plain manipulation. This is not a scholarly researched book from what i have heard of a couple people's assessments. These guys share some of the issue with Riplinger's book.

When all the material shared against Westcott and Hort are quotes that imply details that are inaccurate or quotes that are trimmed to say the opposite of what they wrote, then the better assumption is that Westcott and Hort have made an important contribution to biblical studies.

I cannot address any broad content or any specific knowledge of content in her book. So if she has any arguments beyond the misrepresentations of Westcott and Hort, just read with the same precautions as when reading what she says about Westcott and Hort.

It could be better to continue the discussion in NetChaplin's area instead.
#Net Chaplain Translation Caution

 

[Capbook]

Those reference books show how the Bible translates a word and not what the Greek actually means. "I am" was a common phrase and it isn't the name of anyone.

It is not just a reference book, it is Bible lexicon that define Bible words what it means at the time it was used.
Every Bible words bears meaning and it's better to study with literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages. Paraphrase translations are the product of the translators thoughts not from the Bible words.

 

[Victoria]

It hardly is a personal attack against anyone. The content of is unsupported ideas or just plain manipulation. This is not a scholarly researched book from what i have heard of a couple people's assessments. These guys share some of the issue with Riplinger's book.

When all the material shared against Westcott and Hort are quotes that imply details that are inaccurate or quotes that are trimmed to say the opposite of what they wrote, then the better assumption is that Westcott and Hort have made an important contribution to biblical studies.

I cannot address any broad content or any specific knowledge of content in her book. So if she has any arguments beyond the misrepresentations of Westcott and Hort, just read with the same precautions as when reading what she says about Westcott and Hort.

It could be better to continue the discussion in NetChaplin's area instead.
#Net Chaplain Translation Caution

Any errors yet found on the Godhead, the Gospels, salvation, etc. being in error, Mike? Until then, that discussion can wait b/c you haven't yet proven the Majority Text to be full of error, attacking those things mentioned, like the critical text has.

I worship God, not a translation. If a version attacks Him, it's tossed... period.

 

[Victoria]

When all the material shared against Westcott and Hort are quotes that imply details that are inaccurate or quotes that are trimmed to say the opposite of what they wrote, then the better assumption is that Westcott and Hort have made an important contribution to biblical studies.

I've been reading their quotes for myself, in context. Please don't insult my intelligence. I can certainly see for myself. I study church history as well. Rome will never win. God wins!

 

[mikesw]

Any errors yet found on the Godhead, the Gospels, salvation, etc. being in error, Mike? Until then, that discussion can wait b/c you haven't yet proven the Majority Text to be full of error, attacking those things mentioned, like the critical text has.

I worship God, not a translation. If a version attacks Him, it's tossed... period.

Great you do not worship a translation. As I have mentioned before, however, both the textus receptus and the Nestle-Aland honor God and share the same essential message, so it is not a matter of finding specific error. the Textus Receptus just has extra material that is basically reasonable. I do find John 1:18 more useful for exposing the unitarian misunderstanding. But the whole scripture still testifies against that unitarian view.
Also, as noted, the attacks against Westcott and Hort appear to rely primarily on distortions of their biblical views and various slanders through misquotes. It seems the goal was to distort their image in order to sway people toward the KJV. That is not proper, sort of like points you guard against in this forum.

 

[mikesw]

I've been reading their quotes for myself, in context. Please don't insult my intelligence. I can certainly see for myself. I study church history as well. Rome will never win. God wins!

Oops. This was the only time I have not been able to mind read how much you have studied the quotes in their proper context. You must have a lead shield blocking my mindreading.
I forget if I posted some of the misrepresentations of Westcott and Hort in this thread or another one. But those instances were blatant. Also, I did not know that Rome is doing anything anymore.

 

[Victoria]

Also, as noted, the attacks against Westcott and Hort appear to rely primarily on distortions of their biblical views and various slanders through misquotes. It seems the goal was to distort their image in order to sway people toward the KJV. That is not proper, sort of like points you guard against in this forum.

What errors needed correction?

 

[mikesw]

What errors needed correction?

It is too late now. I have a file marking up the misrepresentations from one website. The video identifies some as well. Also, try the link for the thread more specific to the topic of the KJV.

 

[Victoria]

It is too late now. I have a file marking up the misrepresentations from one website. The video identifies some as well. Also, try the link for the thread more specific to the topic of the KJV.

I was just sharing something w/ Runningman, a realization I had, wasn't intending to make a discussion of it.
I don't know of other threads he visits/converses w/ others in.

 

[Peterlag]

It is not just a reference book, it is Bible lexicon that define Bible words what it means at the time it was used.
Every Bible words bears meaning and it's better to study with literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages. Paraphrase translations are the product of the translators thoughts not from the Bible words.

Well your reference book is wrong because baptizing in the name of the father, son, and spirit does not fit with the rest of the Bible and nobody ever did it and there's no such thing as a trinity.

 

[Peterlag]

Do you to interpret this single verse that the "neither heard His voice" just refer to the Jews, and "neither seen His form" to all mankind?
What kind of standard of interpretation does Arians have?

John 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

Exo 33:20 He further said, “You cannot see My face, for mankind shall not see Me and live!”

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Jesus was talking to the Jews that were standing in front of him. Why do you think what he said to them applies to everyone?

 

[amazing grace]

The Alexandrian Text used as a retaliation method towards the Traditional Text the Protestants use.
Rome just can't let Bible believing Christians be.

It seems the main difference between the two is that the Alexandrian Text is generally shorter and more concise while the Byzantine Text is longer and fuller.

You have a misunderstanding of what the meaning behind begotten is then. God has many sons, Jesus alone holds the title begotten as a stand-out... His deity. To say God's only son, or one & only son = makes God a liar.
This is the problem I have w/ the modern translations.

No, I do not have a misunderstanding behind begotten is - I know what it means as I am sure others do also.
Yes, God has many sons, angels are called the sons of God, Christians are called the sons of God, but only one [begotten] Son.
No matter the translation - the Greek word monogenes remains the same; therefore the definition remains the same. Even if one goes to the English dictionary one can find the meaning of 'only' - 'no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively'.
How does saying only son, or one & only son make GOD a liar or even the translators liars? The Greek word carries the meaning of one, only, one of it's kind, unique----so the meaning is not changed. AND GOD DID NOT TRANSLATE THE BIBLE!!
I did ask a question that wasn't answered. ----- How does being the only begotten Son of God confirm Jesus' deity?

That contradicted each other? Had errors in it? NO

What does this ^^^^ have to do with what I said about the early Christians -
You had said Israel, nor the early Christians of Antioch had a translation preference . . .

The early first century Christians had translations of their scrolls? Paul's letters were written to the church and probably in the language prevalent to that church, prevalent to the people. There was a great divide between the upper, middle and lower class of people - with basically only the upper class having the ability to learn to read. So, I really don't know what your point is.

So, I said nothing about contradictions or errors.
Of course, the original OT writings (what there were of them by the time of the NT and Paul's letters would NOT have errors or contradiction) OUR BIBLES are not the original text but transcribed, copied and copied and copied . . . . EVEN THE KJV! (although KJV is my first love!)

Are there any areas w/in the Byzantine Text that attacks the Godhead, the Gospels, salvation, etc.?
Especially 2 Timothy 2:15

I don't have the original Byzantine Text nor does anyone for that matter.
I don't believe 2 Tim. 2:15 Attacks the Godhead, the Gospels, salvation etc.? I believe it encourages us to study for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness.

If you could show me any examples, I'm open to hearing you out.

 

[amazing grace]

Regarding 2 Timothy 2:15, Traditional Text, as one example, seems pretty consistent to me.
Why was this verse changed? It's not an error.

John Wycliffe Bible (1382)

Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe.

Tyndale Bible (1534)

Study to shewe thy silfe laudable vnto god a workman yt nedeth not to be a shamed dividynge the worde of trueth iustly

Geneva Bible (1560/1599)

Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed, diuiding the worde of trueth aright.

Bishops Bible (1568)

Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman not to be ashamed, rightlie deuidyng the worde of trueth.

Translations change I believe to suit the times . . . IOW, If we still spoke that way then they would have remained that way.
Where was it changed to the point the meaning was changed --- if that is your point?