To accommodate the moderator TrustGuz, the name of this thread has been changed to Dynamic Equivalency and the UBS, so that it might more closely align itself with content.
The Bible is an inexhaustible because it is Godís word. It does not read like a manís novel, with the narrow thoughts of man. All of the verses agree, one with another, and fit like a glove, from Genesis to Revelation. They are all intertwined, and the writers, when they wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not in themselves see the whole overall picture, for no one can exhaust this Book. No one has ever read this book and been able to say, now I understand all things revealed in this Book. That is why manís thoughts cannot replace Godís thoughts.
Joe you presented three verses following verse John 15, that you indicate show that the liberal translations reveal the Deity of Christ better than the KJV does.
A look at the first verse you presented, John 1:18. You say the Deity of Christ is much clearer in the CEV and GNB than the KJV.
CEV ďNo one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.Ē
The statement, ďThe only SonĒ is contradictory to six verses in the Old Testament and five verses in the New Testament.God has many sons as described by these verses, therefore, ďThe only sonĒ in the CEV cannot be an accurate statement, for God has many sons.
The ERV, ASV, and NASB, all CT, have begotten in their text. Begotten relates to biological, as opposed to being adopted. The KJV has begotten as well.
CEV ď--who is truly God and is closest to the Father--
GNT ď--and is at the Fatherís side.
Now we see two Godís, the Son who is God, is close to the other God,who is his Father.
This is where the thought for thought translation gets into trouble. How do you describe with your own thoughts that which is indescribable. God is a Spirit. How does one with his own mind describe the relationship between God the Father, and God the Son. If they are truly one, you cannot place God the Son standing alongside of God the Father, because they then become two Godís. Jesus said, ďI and my Father are one.Ē John 10:30
The CT has omitted εἰς, which means ďinĒ, or the equivalent in this verse. In spite of that, the ERV, ASV, and NASB, all have ďinĒ the bosom in their text.
What should be noted is that the Critical Text does have κόλπος, the word translated bosom in this verse, and yet you do not see it in the Dynamic Equivalence texts.
In other words, Jesus is in the arms of the Father. And then when you realize that Jesus is described as the arms of God, as described in both the Old and New Testament, you begin to realize the oneness. (Isaiah 53:1 is one verse that describes Jesus as the arm of God, but there are many verses that do this)
So when you see the thought for thought translations trying to translate Godís thoughts into their own, you then find the Father and the Son separated, or two separate Gods.
NIV ďNo one has ever seen God. But God the one and only, who is at the Fatherís side, has made him known.Ē
Clearly both the CT and RT have bosom (κόλπος) in their text, yet the Dynamic Equivalent Translations have chosen to place Jesus apart from the Father, making 2 Gods.
Godís thoughts are so much higher than our thoughts, making it impossible to translate Godís thoughts into our thoughts.
So in conclusion, which one makes the Deity of Christ clearer, the one placing Jesus outside the Father, (or standing beside the Father) and thus creating two Godís, or the one placing him in the Fatherís arms, which are in fact the arms of Jesus? Remember God is a Spirit, and we must worship him in Spirit and in Truth.