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 where the complete meaning was changed --- if that is your point?

 

[amazing grace]

Whoa, now... something just dawned on me that I didn't catch at first. Divine Being... think New Age. It's New Age terminology!
Ever hear them referring to the "Divine", meaning the "Universe", but NOT Jesus Christ as being the Creator?

LOL The Greek word for what is translated 'godhead' is theion and it carries the meaning: divine; subst: the Deity, from theos meaning godlike, divine, godhead.

So translating the Greek into Divine Being, godhead or godlike would be conveying the correct meaning of the Greek.

Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. (ESV)
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. (KJV )

Choosing to use a different word contained within the definition of the Greek is NOT corrupt ---- as long as the word being used is withing the definition of the Greek.

But this subject matter is taking the OP off topic. . . .

 

[Runningman]

There it is, Runningman... Godhead. It's no wonder you think it's unbiblical, you've got a corrupt version

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Acts 17:29

Whoa, now... something just dawned on me that I didn't catch at first. Divine Being... think New Age. It's New Age terminology!
Ever hear them referring to the "Divine", meaning the "Universe", but NOT Jesus Christ as being the Creator?

"Godhead" isn't a literal definition of theios. It can be translated as deity or divine being. Either word works. It certainly doesn't mean "trinity" which would be a theological definition used by trinitarians. Trinitarianism is a hyper-liberal interpretation of the Bible since it uses terms and definitions not found in Scripture. That means trinitarianism is an extra-Biblical theology.

I am beginning to see something clearly every time I discuss the Bible with you all. You cannot discuss the Bible without adding your own vocabulary into it. Actually, I have seen some of you flat out attack the Bible when it doesn't match what you want to believe.

 

[Runningman]

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

View attachment 2430​

Θεῖον (Theion) in Acts 17:29 being translated as "divine being" or "divine nature" is an acceptable and honest translation. You can research these things. Yes your post does come off as a bit of an attack on the Scripture. I understand you have your team and that's who you play for, but I play for the Truth team. Would you consider yourself a KJV-onlyist?

 

[Runningman]

I have to remind you. Not everyone lives by hyperliteralism alone. Some people consider scripture for what it shares, not for simple one verse messages that control all other meaning of scripture.

If the Bible isn't literal and you are free to invent your own vocabulary, definitions, and interpretations then that would explain why you all wrote creeds and other philosophical works to describe what you believe. You are free to go your own way and believe things not in the Bible, but don't mess with our Scripture. The Bible is already the complete revelation and no one is invited to add to it. So Scripture teaches the Father is the only true God, there is no mention of a trinity. You could even plug in the word "Trinity" where God is in the Bible and it never makes a lick of sense.

 

[Runningman]

Like I have shown. The Word appears in conversation with Abram in Gen 15:1-5. Abraham's is called to sacrifice Isaac, but the angel stopped that whereas God sacrifices his Son for our sin.

Foreshadowing.

The Jesus is called Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6-7,

The Bible never says Isaiah 9:6-7 is about Jesus. It also says "he will be called..." which is future tense. After that, no one ever called Jesus mighty God. Means your trinitarian version is wrong.

Here are the more literal translations of Isaiah 9. As you can see, no mention of them being mighty God or the Father. Plus your version says he reigns on the throne of David, not the throne of God. Ouch ouch ouch. That's one you can't use your Houdini theology on and make disappear.

Yeshayahu (Isaiah) - Chapter 9 (CJB)
5For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
6To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

Isaiah 9 (LXX)
6For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
7His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgement and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.

Dan 7:13-14 shows someone like a son of man on the clouds. Jesus is divine but also has humanity, and thus is called Son of Man. That term would be useless if it meant he was just another person born of man. It actually would be a bit off-target since his humanity only came through the woman, Mary. His Father was because he is born of God.

Him being one of the many sons of men in the context who all receive the same authority and sovereignty over the kingdom means they aren't God.

The unitarian has only reason to deny the virgin birth because it has no relevance to them.
Jesus is called God by Thomas, but unitarians cannot stand that Jesus is called God, so they make up another excuse. Yet, the Schoenheit says there is no evidence of the divinity of Christ, as if he has just opened up the Bible for the first time.

No Bible says Thomas called Jesus God. Notice none of them say "You are my my God."

 

[Runningman]

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.

I've found errors in every translation. The KJV has several.

 

[mikesw]

If the Bible isn't literal and you are free to invent your own vocabulary, definitions, and interpretations then that would explain why you all wrote creeds and other philosophical works to describe what you believe. You are free to go your own way and believe things not in the Bible, but don't mess with our Scripture. The Bible is already the complete revelation and no one is invited to add to it. So Scripture teaches the Father is the only true God, there is no mention of a trinity. You could even plug in the word "Trinity" where God is in the Bible and it never makes a lick of sense.

Haha. I have not invented words. God does not restrict what words we use to talk about doctrines and scripture. You are like the kid who rewrites the rules so he can win a child's game.