PDA

View Full Version : Philippians 2:6-7 Why?



rejoice44
Sep 7th 2012, 08:31 PM
NASB Philippians 2:6-7 (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses?

What does “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” mean? Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God?

And if this translation is correct, why does the conjunction “but”, in verse seven, occur?

Doesn’t the conjunction “but” indicate a transition? Where is the transition, if Jesus could not be equal to God, and then Jesus empties himself?

I am at a loss as to how these translators justify changing the Authorized Version to read in a way that denies the Deity of Jesus, and that also makes no sense in the form that it occurs in.

Can someone please explain what makes it right?

markedward
Sep 7th 2012, 09:31 PM
I am at a loss as to how these translators justify changing the Authorized Version
First, a note; the translators are not obligated to justify why they 'changed' the KJV, because the KJV is not the supreme translation that all translations must be based upon. The KJV is fallible, and on occasion does have some serious errors, so we should not be using it as a standard.


And if this translation is correct, why does the conjunction “but”, in verse seven, occur?
'But' is the most appropriate translation of the Greek word αλλ, which means 'contrariwise' (Mickelson), or 'nevertheless' (Thayer). Various KJV renderings of the word include: but, howbeit, indeed, nevertheless, notwithstanding, save (as in, 'except'), yet.

Here is an alternate literal translation of the text:

The Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God to be seized, but he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men. And found in the manner of man he humbled himself, became obedient till death, death even from the cross. Thus God highly exalted him and favorably bestowed upon him the name higher than every name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, from above the heavens, from the earth, from under the earth, and every shall tongue confess that Jesus the Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father.

The most difficult part of interpreting this text is the Greek word αρπαγμον (harpagmon). The KJV has it as 'robbery', the ESV has it as 'to be grasped', the VW has 'clinging'. The word found in Philippians 2 is drawn from a verb that means 'to take'. This root verb is often used in a negative context (as in 'to take by force'), but rare occasions use it positively and neutrally ('to take' or 'to carry'). The passage is talking about how Jesus came to be King. Did Jesus become King by selfishness, or by selflessness? Hence, what Paul describes is that the man Jesus (who though 'in the form of God') did not attempt to usurp authority from God, but instead was obedient and subservient to God, and thus God exalted the man Jesus.


Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God?
The exaltation that Paul describes is very important to pay attention to. God does not simply say 'Alright, Jesus is King now'. Rather, God 'favorably bestowed upon him the name higher than every name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, from above the heavens, from the earth, from under the earth, and every shall tongue confess that Jesus the Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father'.

In this statement, we find Paul taking a passage from the Old Testament (Isaiah 45.23) and putting Jesus at the center. But take this in context. Throughout all of Paul's letters he is adamantly monotheistic, proclaiming again and again that there is only one true God, Yahweh the God of Israel who created all things. And Paul, being a learned Jew, would obviously know that some of the most adamant, vocal proclamations of monotheism in the Old Testament come from Isaiah. Specifically, Isaiah 40-55, or so. And some of those parts that proclaim that Yahweh is the one and only true God also proclaim that there never has been and never will be another god (43.10), and that no one will ever share the glory of Yahweh (42.8; 48.11). So... for Paul to know this about Isaiah, and yet to apply to Jesus one of Isaiah's saying about Yahweh's glory, can only mean one thing:

Despite all the talk of 'seizing' and 'emptying' and such, Paul believed that Jesus is Yahweh in the form of a man, and that true worship of Yahweh must be focused on the person of Jesus.

chad
Sep 7th 2012, 10:00 PM
IMO, the verse is speaking about Christs attitude. He came as a servant and while on earth he served. In verse 9, Paul writes, God exalted him to the highest place. (We know that is the right hand of God in the heavens. Equal to God. Christs attitude is of a servant, while on earth, which is the opposite to Satans attitude who thought he could be exalted as God)

In verse 5, Paul writes, our attitude should be the same as Christ, that is as of servants towards others.

Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.




NASB Philippians 2:6-7 (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses?

What does “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” mean? Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God?

And if this translation is correct, why does the conjunction “but”, in verse seven, occur?

Doesn’t the conjunction “but” indicate a transition? Where is the transition, if Jesus could not be equal to God, and then Jesus empties himself?

I am at a loss as to how these translators justify changing the Authorized Version to read in a way that denies the Deity of Jesus, and that also makes no sense in the form that it occurs in.

Can someone please explain what makes it right?

TrustGzus
Sep 7th 2012, 10:25 PM
NASB Philippians 2:6-7 (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses?

What does “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” mean? Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God?

And if this translation is correct, why does the conjunction “but”, in verse seven, occur?

Doesn’t the conjunction “but” indicate a transition? Where is the transition, if Jesus could not be equal to God, and then Jesus empties himself?

I am at a loss as to how these translators justify changing the Authorized Version to read in a way that denies the Deity of Jesus, and that also makes no sense in the form that it occurs in.

Can someone please explain what makes it right?

Couldn't we take your questions and basically just re-supply the KJV in place of the NASB and ask the same questions? The KJV is not clear to the vast majority of people who read this portion.

Let me illustrate:


Philippians 2:6–7 (AV)
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses?

What does “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” mean? Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God?

And if this translation is correct, why does the conjunction “but”, in verse seven, occur?

BroRog
Sep 7th 2012, 11:31 PM
NASB Philippians 2:6-7 (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses?

What does “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” mean? Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God?

And if this translation is correct, why does the conjunction “but”, in verse seven, occur?

Doesn’t the conjunction “but” indicate a transition? Where is the transition, if Jesus could not be equal to God, and then Jesus empties himself?

I am at a loss as to how these translators justify changing the Authorized Version to read in a way that denies the Deity of Jesus, and that also makes no sense in the form that it occurs in.

Can someone please explain what makes it right?Many people believe Paul is teaching about Jesus' divinity in this passage. And while I believe in the deity of Jesus and the fact that Jesus is God, I do not believe that the subject of this passage is the deity of Christ. Here is my analysis.

Let's back up a few verses to pick up the discourse earlier.


2:1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus . . .


Paul wants his readers to adopt the same attitude as Jesus, which in some significant way exemplifies the attitude he just described. The exhortation is to not act selfishly, but with humility, and to treat other people as more important as yourselves. Even if you might be the leader of a church, or the head of a bank, or a distinguished diplomat, you need to humble yourself and treat other believers as being just as worthy of love as you are. After Paul makes this exhortation, he uses Jesus Christ to illustrate his point.

who, although He existed in the form of God
Jesus is God and he lived on earth as God. That is, while living on earth, he exemplified the character, righteousness, goodness, of the Father, and he had every right to be worshiped as both Lord and King.

did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped
Since Jesus is God, the son of God, the image of God, the Lord of all, and the King of Israel, Jesus deserved to live as a king with all the rights and privileges of a king. He deserved to be worshiped, obeyed, and heard by each and every person on earth. However, Jesus did not regard this status as something to be held at all costs. For a time, he was willing to let go of this status so that he might walk among human beings as one of them.

but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant,
Instead of coming as a king, he came as a bond-servant. This is how we can imitate Christ. We can't become God like he is; we can't insist on worship like he can; but we can humble ourselves and decide to serve each other rather than insisting on our high position.

being made in the likeness of men.
Likeness of men = like the common, everyday man. Jesus didn't come as an elite, rich, nobleman. He came as a moderately poor, everyday, person. He never insisted that people bow to him or call him by his title. While he was deserving of the title, "son of God", he most often referred to himself as "son of man." When he came, he came as one of us, a son of man. A humble human being without status or name or position.

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Not only did Jesus humble himself, and emptied himself of all the status and advantage that the King deserves, he sacrificially offered even his life to save human beings from destruction.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 12:38 AM
First, a note; the translators are not obligated to justify why they 'changed' the KJV, because the KJV is not the supreme translation that all translations must be based upon. The KJV is fallible, and on occasion does have some serious errors, so we should not be using it as a standard.

The translation of Philippians 2:6-7, as found in the Authorized version, stood for 500 years, and you say they are not obligated to explain why they changed it.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 12:43 AM
IMO, the verse is speaking about Christs attitude. He came as a servant and while on earth he served. In verse 9, Paul writes, God exalted him to the highest place. (We know that is the right hand of God in the heavens. Equal to God. Christs attitude is of a servant, while on earth, which is the opposite to Satans attitude who thought he could be exalted as God)

In verse 5, Paul writes, our attitude should be the same as Christ, that is as of servants towards others.

Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Do you acknowledge that they changed the meaning of verse six, and if so, by what authority?

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 12:50 AM
Couldn't we take your questions and basically just re-supply the KJV in place of the NASB and ask the same questions? The KJV is not clear to the vast majority of people who read this portion.

Let me illustrate:





Can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses?

What does “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” mean? Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God?

And if this translation is correct, why does the conjunction “but”, in verse seven, occur?

It seems pretty clear to me. It is saying that Jesus is God, just as it says in John 10:30, "I and my Father are one".

If I said, "I didn't think it was robbery to take the car sitting by the curb", then it wouldn't be robbery if the car was mine. Jesus is either equal to God, or Jesus is not equal to God. You choose.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 01:04 AM
did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped
Since Jesus is God, the son of God, the image of God, the Lord of all, and the King of Israel, Jesus deserved to live as a king with all the rights and privileges of a king. He deserved to be worshiped, obeyed, and heard by each and every person on earth. However, Jesus did not regard this status as something to be held at all costs. For a time, he was willing to let go of this status so that he might walk among human beings as one of them.



As I read verse six in the NASB it says, "Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped". When you take this verse as literally written, it means that Jesus was not God. The Greek was translated into English, and we have to render the meaning of the words as we find them in modern English.

chad
Sep 8th 2012, 01:10 AM
Maybe the NLT translation explains it better.

5 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.

6 Though he was God,
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form,
8 he humbled himself in obedience to God
and died a criminal’s death on a cross.



Do you acknowledge that they changed the meaning of verse six, and if so, by what authority?

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 01:22 AM
Maybe the NLT translation explains it better.

5 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.

6 Though he was God,
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form,
8 he humbled himself in obedience to God
and died a criminal’s death on a cross.

Why wouldn't equality with God be something to cling to? Did Jesus give up his divine privileges, or did he merely set them aside, there is a difference. When you go about changing the word of God you get into all kinds of problems. If they had rendered it "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" they would have eliminated all their struggles to correct the verse.

Scruffy Kid
Sep 8th 2012, 01:36 AM
The Christological Hymn, as a whole, in Greek, runs like this
Phl 2:5 τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
Phl 2:6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ
Phl 2:7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
Phl 2:8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ
Phl 2:9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα
Phl 2:10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων
Phl 2:11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός

The Authorized Version (AV) -- also called King James Version (KJV) -- renders this into English in this way:
(But I give the English including the verses (2:1-4, 2:12-17) which immediately precede and follow, also.)

Phl 2:1 If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Phl 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.
Phl 2:3 [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Phl 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Phl 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Phl 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Phl 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only,
but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Phl 2:14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
Phl 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a
crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
Phl 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.
Phl 2:17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.

The core meaning of the text -- either the whole, or verses 6-7, does not change, regardless of what translation is used.
More on that in a moment; but for this post I simply want to set out the text.

markedward
Sep 8th 2012, 01:44 AM
The translation of Philippians 2:6-7, as found in the Authorized version, stood for 500 years, and you say they are not obligated to explain why they changed it.
Right. The KJV is not the end-all standard for other Bibles, let alone English Bibles. It might be called 'the authorized version', but no one had any right to claim the authority to designate the KJV as the Bible-To-End-All-Bibles. Unless God himself 'authorized' the KJV as the perfect Bible, superior to even the original Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek... then the KJV is not really 'the authorized version'.

There are countless reasons for why the KJV is not the Supreme Bible, but I'm not trying to bash the KJV. I'm just pointing out, the standard you hold for appropriate translation should not be the KJV, your standard should be the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the languages the books of the Bible were written in.

Scruffy Kid
Sep 8th 2012, 01:50 AM
Certainly this text is proclaiming the full deity of Jesus -- that Jesus is fully God. Some other texts which also explicitly proclaim Christ Jesus's full deity include John 1, Colossians 1, Ephesians 1, John 17, and so on. However, the entire structure of the NT, and of Jesus' remarks in the NT, also indicates Christ's Deity (his being God). (i) The fact that Jesus refers to God as Father, and even Abba (Daddy) indicates that Jesus is begotten by God the Father, for like begets like. Again, Thomas confesses (expresses his belief in) Christ as God in John 20, saying "My Lord and my God" ("the Lord of me and the God of me") 8 days after the resurrection (that is, on the Sunday after the resurrection). Other passages are unambiguous about Christ's full Deity, even when they are not very explicit. For instance, in Mark's gospel Jesus -- replying among other things to those who regarded him as overstepping his authority -- Jesus, with a word, declares the sins of the paralyzed man (who'd been let down through the roof tiles) forgiven. The Pharisees object, in their thoughts, saying "Who can forgive sins but God alone"? Through the whole sequence, I think, Mark is teaching us that JEsus can do what only God can do, and that Jesus is, therefore, God.

However, like most of the texts which proclaim the full divinity of Jesus -- John 1, Col. 1, John 13-17, Hebrews, etc. -- Phil. 2:5-11 also, at the same time, proclaims the full humanity of Jesus. Jesus is "fully God and fully man" while being "one Christ". It is striking that the NT often juxtaposes these ideas, which gives us (for one thing) a full and balanced account of just Who Jesus is. But the Philippians 2 text, the Christological Hymn, is particularly clear in its proclamation that Jesus is man and God, one person in this regard: it emphasizes the sequence, that Jesus, emptied himself, came down from heaven, descending to the lowest depths, and on this account, or through this was given a name above every name, and proclaimed by God the Father as Lord of All This imparts a very specific character to Christ: the character of the one who, forgetting himself, and moved and carried along instead by obedience to God's purposes, and compassion for others. .

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 02:14 AM
Right. The KJV is not the end-all standard for other Bibles, let alone English Bibles. It might be called 'the authorized version', but no one had any right to claim the authority to designate the KJV as the Bible-To-End-All-Bibles. Unless God himself 'authorized' the KJV as the perfect Bible, superior to even the original Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek... then the KJV is not really 'the authorized version'.

This verse was rendered the same as the Authorized Version some 229 years before the Authorized Version. This is about changing the English translation which stood for five hundred years. The King James Bible was referred to as the Authorized version ever since its inception. The ERV translators, the ASV translators, and the NASB translators all referred to the King James Bible as the Authorized Version, so I don't understand why it offends you.


There are countless reasons for why the KJV is not the Supreme Bible, but I'm not trying to bash the KJV. I'm just pointing out, the standard you hold for appropriate translation should not be the KJV, your standard should be the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the languages the books of the Bible were written in.

The NASB was written in English, and as such, has to stand or fall on English word definitions. If it had been written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, then you would have an argument.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 02:20 AM
Certainly this text is proclaiming the full deity of Jesus -- that Jesus is fully God. Some other texts which also explicitly proclaim Christ Jesus's full deity include John 1, Colossians 1, Ephesians 1, John 17, and so on. However, the entire structure of the NT, and of Jesus' remarks in the NT, also indicates Christ's Deity (his being God). (i) The fact that Jesus refers to God as Father, and even Abba (Daddy) indicates that Jesus is begotten by God the Father, for like begets like. Again, Thomas confesses (expresses his belief in) Christ as God in John 20, saying "My Lord and my God" ("the Lord of me and the God of me") 8 days after the resurrection (that is, on the Sunday after the resurrection). Other passages are unambiguous about Christ's full Deity, even when they are not very explicit. For instance, in Mark's gospel Jesus -- replying among other things to those who regarded him as overstepping his authority -- Jesus, with a word, declares the sins of the paralyzed man (who'd been let down through the roof tiles) forgiven. The Pharisees object, in their thoughts, saying "Who can forgive sins but God alone"? Through the whole sequence, I think, Mark is teaching us that JEsus can do what only God can do, and that Jesus is, therefore, God.

However, like most of the texts which proclaim the full divinity of Jesus -- John 1, Col. 1, John 13-17, Hebrews, etc. -- Phil. 2:5-11 also, at the same time, proclaims the full humanity of Jesus. Jesus is "fully God and fully man" while being "one Christ". It is striking that the NT often juxtaposes these ideas, which gives us (for one thing) a full and balanced account of just Who Jesus is. But the Philippians 2 text, the Christological Hymn, is particularly clear in its proclamation that Jesus is man and God, one person in this regard: it emphasizes the sequence, that Jesus, emptied himself, came down from heaven, descending to the lowest depths, and on this account, or through this was given a name above every name, and proclaimed by God the Father as Lord of All This imparts a very specific character to Christ: the character of the one who, forgetting himself, and moved and carried along instead by obedience to God's purposes, and compassion for others. .

But all this doesn't answer why all English translations prior to 1881 had rendered Philippians 2:6 as "Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God", and all translations since render it as "Jesus couldn't grasp equality with God".

markedward
Sep 8th 2012, 02:35 AM
so I don't understand why it offends you.
It doesn't offend me. I only point out that no one had the 'authority' to claim the KJV was 'the authorized version'. The name 'authorized version' is misleading, which is why I prefer 'King James version', a more neutral and objective name. But anyway.


The NASB was written in English, and as such, has to stand or fall on English word definitions. If it had been written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, then you would have an argument.
I don't see what this has to do with what I was saying. I didn't say anything about the NASB. What I did say, rather, is that the books of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek... not English. Hence, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts are the real 'authorized version', because they were the original texts that God inspired to have been written. They are the standard, not the KJV.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 02:48 AM
It doesn't offend me. I only point out that no one had the 'authority' to claim the KJV was 'the authorized version'. The name 'authorized version' is misleading, which is why I prefer 'King James version', a more neutral and objective name. But anyway.


I don't see what this has to do with what I was saying. I didn't say anything about the NASB. What I did say, rather, is that the books of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek... not English. Hence, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts are the real 'authorized version', because they were the original texts that God inspired to have been written. They are the standard, not the KJV.

We do not have the originals and have to depend on God to provide us with his Word. I do not apologize for referring to the Authorized Version as the Authorized Version since even its enemies referred to it as the Authorized Version. But that is only a rabbit trail since this isn't about the King James Bible, but rather changing the reading in English of the Bible which stood for five hundred years.

TrustGzus
Sep 8th 2012, 03:18 AM
It seems pretty clear to me. It is saying that Jesus is God, just as it says in John 10:30, "I and my Father are one".

If I said, "I didn't think it was robbery to take the car sitting by the curb", then it wouldn't be robbery if the car was mine. Jesus is either equal to God, or Jesus is not equal to God. You choose.

You will always say it is clear to you, Norman.

But take the King James rendition of Philippians 2:6-7 to half a dozen educated people on the street who don't read the King James and ask them what that passages means and they will not have the clear understanding that you always have when you read the King James. The King James is no clearer on this passage than the NASB and the NASB is not denying the deity of Jesus.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 03:28 AM
You will always say it is clear to you, Norman.

But take the King James rendition of Philippians 2:6-7 to half a dozen educated people on the street who don't read the King James and ask them what that passages means and they will not have the clear understanding that you always have when you read the King James. The King James is no clearer on this passage than the NASB and the NASB is not denying the deity of Jesus.

Joe, forget the rest of the passage, and tell me what part of "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", do you not understand? Why is this so complicated? Surely you can see the difference between "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", and "thought equality with God something not to be grasped".

markedward
Sep 8th 2012, 03:30 AM
We do not have the originals
What we do have is very, very close, at least in regards to the NT. And in this particular case, we absolutely know what the original Greek text said in Philippians 2.6-7. The only variation in this text is the spelling of the word shown with the bracketed alpha (α), and it has no effect on the meaning of the sentence.

ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω αλλ[α] εαυτον εκενωσεν μορφην δουλου λαβων εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος

In an absolutely literal translation to English, without correcting for English grammar, this would be:

[who in to-form of-god he-existing] [not seizure he-does-consider the to-be equal to-god] [but self he-emptied] [form of-slave he-having-taken] [in to-likeness of-men he-having-become]

In your OP, you asked why the word 'but' is used: the word αλλ[α] can be literally translated as 'but'. That is, more or less, its basic equivalent in English.

Your main question revolves around the word αρπαγμον (a noun, translated above as 'seizure', since it comes from the Greek verb 'to seize' or 'to take'). Contemporary translations differ from older English versions because scholars today, having a wider knowledge of ancient Greek language than scholars 500 years ago, believe 'grasped' or 'seized' more accurately reflect Paul's meaning when he used the word αρπαγμον.

TrustGzus
Sep 8th 2012, 03:37 AM
Joe, forget the rest of the passage, and tell me what part of "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", do you not understand? Why is this so complicated? Surely you can see the difference between "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", and "thought equality with God something not to be grasped".

Norman, I don't think either translation is impressive with it. J. Vernon McGee, who used the KJV in all his teachings, said this passage was a rather "stilted" translation. I don't think he was handing out a compliment to the KJV translators there.

And if you look at lexicons, they support both ways this is translated. So if they see no problem with either, then why do you disagree with the Greek experts?

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 03:59 AM
What we do have is very, very close, at least in regards to the NT. And in this particular case, we absolutely know what the original Greek text said in Philippians 2.6-7. The only variation in this text is the spelling of the word shown with the bracketed alpha (α), and it has no effect on the meaning of the sentence.

ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω αλλ[α] εαυτον εκενωσεν μορφην δουλου λαβων εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος

In an absolutely literal translation to English, without correcting for English grammar, this would be:

[who in to-form of-god he-existing] [not seizure he-does-consider the to-be equal to-god] [but self he-emptied] [form of-slave he-having-taken] [in to-likeness of-men he-having-become]

In your OP, you asked why the word 'but' is used: the word αλλ[α] can be literally translated as 'but'. That is, more or less, its basic equivalent in English.

Your main question revolves around the word αρπαγμον (a noun, translated above as 'seizure', since it comes from the Greek verb 'to seize' or 'to take'). Contemporary translations differ from older English versions because scholars today, having a wider knowledge of ancient Greek language than scholars 500 years ago, believe 'grasped' or 'seized' more accurately reflect Paul's meaning when he used the word αρπαγμον.

I always thought evidence decreases with time. I realize there is always exceptions to any rule, as in the case of DNA evidence, but what evidence do we have that proves the meaning of this word that occurs only one time in the Bible. Its root word means to steal. Isn't seizing something that doesn't belong to you robbery. What proof do you have that we now have new evidence that indicates they were wrong for five hundred years.

This verse was first changed in 1881, and a man named George Vance Smith was part of the translating committee that worked on translating Philippians chapter two. He was a Unitarian who didn't believe in the Deity of Christ, and he mentioned Philippians 2:10

Dr. George Vance Smith--
"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).

That this man was on the translating committee is a fact. That he said the above statement has been recorded. The reason I brought him up is that you claim these men were more knowledgeable when they made the changes. It is clear that this man had a bias.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 04:02 AM
Norman, I don't think either translation is impressive with it. J. Vernon McGee, who used the KJV in all his teachings, said this passage was a rather "stilted" translation. I don't think he was handing out a compliment to the KJV translators there.

And if you look at lexicons, they support both ways this is translated. So if they see no problem with either, then why do you disagree with the Greek experts?

Is there a difference in the meaning of "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", and "thought equality with God not something to be grasped"?

chad
Sep 8th 2012, 04:36 AM
Well, this is just my opinion on how the verses can be read... Of the NASB translation (Philppians 2:6-7)

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

On earth, Jesus came as a servant. He served God, by doing his will. John writes in 6:38, "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."
Jesus on earth as man, was in the form of a servant. A servant of God. A servant, is not that of equality.

Of the KJV translation of Philippians 2:6, this is how I understand it.

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Who – That is Jesus

Being in the form of God – The son of God, the Messiah and Christ, born of the flesh, of the virgin Mary.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God – Jesus did not in his mind or attitude, think it was robbery or stealing to be considered equal with God.

So although the two verses can be read differently, IMO, there is no contradiction or denial of the deity of Christ, but they can give a different insight on the verses.




Is there a difference in the meaning of "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", and "thought equality with God not something to be grasped"?

TrustGzus
Sep 8th 2012, 05:29 AM
I always thought evidence decreases with time. I realize there is always exceptions to any rule, as in the case of DNA evidence, but what evidence do we have that proves the meaning of this word that occurs only one time in the Bible. Its root word means to steal. Isn't seizing something that doesn't belong to you robbery. What proof do you have that we now have new evidence that indicates they were wrong for five hundred years.

This verse was first changed in 1881, and a man named George Vance Smith was part of the translating committee that worked on translating Philippians chapter two. He was a Unitarian who didn't believe in the Deity of Christ, and he mentioned Philippians 2:10

Dr. George Vance Smith--
"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).

That this man was on the translating committee is a fact. That he said the above statement has been recorded. The reason I brought him up is that you claim these men were more knowledgeable when they made the changes. It is clear that this man had a bias.

Evidence increases in regard to translating koine Greek because while the Bible might use a word only once, and thus not give much opportunity to discover how a word is used, newer non-biblical documents continue to be uncovered and thus words are able to be studied more and a more rounded understanding of how words were used continues to grow.

By the way, the so-called change of "at the name" to "in the name" . . . doesn't apply to the NASB. NASB has "at the name." I guess the NASB still has the worship and adoration of Jesus.

TrustGzus
Sep 8th 2012, 05:39 AM
Is there a difference in the meaning of "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", and "thought equality with God not something to be grasped"?

Norman, when you look at the individual parts of these two translations, they both have the same elements . . .

Both start with thought.

Both speak of being equal with God.

Bothe speak of the thought in the negative, i.e. they both use the word "not".

The difference: one says "robbery", the other says "something to be grasped."

So, you'd have to explain how "robbery" and "something to be grasped" are so radically different that the deity is affirmed by one and not by other. Frankly, when we see that this is the only difference, those phrases don't sound all that different.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 06:29 AM
As I read verse six in the NASB it says, "Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped". When you take this verse as literally written, it means that Jesus was not God. The Greek was translated into English, and we have to render the meaning of the words as we find them in modern English.If you remember, I started my explanation with a quotation of a few verses prior to this one. I did this because the art of reading requires us to follow an author's chain of thought from the beginning. If we focus on a single sentence taken from his discourse, we take the sentence away from Paul's point, which leads to misunderstanding. If we follow Paul's line of thought and we pay attention to his exhortation, we find Paul attempting to exhort his readers to adopt a humble attitude and treat each other as being more important than themselves. During his exhortation, he recommends that we adopt the attitude of Jesus.

Now, think to yourself. Would Paul suggest that you and I are divine beings who need to cast off our divinity in order to adopt a humble attitude? I don't think so. Paul wants us to act like Jesus. Why would he advise us to act like Jesus and then tell us that Jesus emptied himself of his deity? Is that something that you and I can do? No. The reason why Paul uses Jesus as our example is because we are fully capable of doing what Jesus did. Paul wants us to act like Jesus and he expects us to be able to do what Jesus did. This important piece of information informs us as to what Paul means when he says, "Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped".

There are different ways that one person might be equal to another person. A person might be the same height, or the same weight, or the same race, nationality, gender. Even two people who are of different socio/economic classes or grew up in different neighborhoods in America are treated equal before the Law. The Law applies to everyone equally. Another way a person might be equal to another person is the two of them might be equal in character, honesty, loyalty, wisdom, and such things. In short, people can be deemed equal in whatever way we want to classify people.

In what way were Jesus and God equal? Were they equal physically? Not really. Were they equal in character? Yes. But Paul wouldn't suggest that Jesus gave up being equal with God in character, or faithfulness, or goodness, or righteousness, or love. Paul is telling his readers to act like Jesus and so whatever we do, we need to give up equality with God the way Jesus did. Some argue that Jesus gave up being equal with God in the nature of his being. While this might be true, it isn't something that you and I can do. We can't give up or transform the nature of our being, so Paul isn't asking us to emulate that. What other way did Jesus stop being equal with God? He stopped being equal in status. And THIS is how we can imitate our master.

Even while Jesus was living as a man, he deserved our worship because of his high status. He had every right to insist that people bow, curtsy, and serve him. Everyone on earth should serve him and obey him. Jesus is more important than any other human being. He is equal in status with God. And Jesus had every right to behave in a way that demonstrates his importance and his power. But, Paul says, Jesus did not consider being equal in status with God a thing to hold tightly. Rather than behaving in a way that showed his status, he was humble and treated others as being more important that himself, even though in reality he was the most important human being.

Paul wants us to adopt the attitude of Jesus, which was humility. He argues that if anyone had a right to be treated as being equal in status with God, Jesus did. But Jesus humbled himself taking on the role of a bond-servant. And we can copy Jesus, not by giving up our deity, but by humbling ourselves and also taking on the role of a bond-servant.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 06:37 AM
Is there a difference in the meaning of "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", and "thought equality with God not something to be grasped"?Yes. The two sentences are different in meaning. The KJV swings the emphasis on the fact that Jesus was equal with God, which is true. The NASB throws the emphasis on the idea that Jesus, while being equal with God, did not consider this equality something to hold tightly. I believe the NASB is closer to Paul's intended meaning.

Scruffy Kid
Sep 8th 2012, 11:31 AM
The passage in question (Phil. 2:5-11) -- the Christological Hymn, as it is called -- is one of the most important passages in Scripture, and one of the earliest. It could even be the part of the NT which was written first since the letter to the Philippians is an early letter, and since Paul may be quoting here a hymn which was familiar to his readers. If that is so, this would be a very early hymn of worship to Christ Jesus our God, for if Paul quotes it, probably assuming that his readers were familiar with it, it must considerably predate the letter.

What is interesting about that early date is the letter's highly developed Christology: it strongly asserts both Jesus' full divinity and His full humanity. (That dual assertion is, as I pointed out above, a feature of John 1, Hebrews, and other passages giving a high Christology -- that is, proclaiming Christ's divinity -- as well. That is, understanding that this is a very early passage of Scripture helps emphasize that from the very beginning the first Christians recognized Jesus as God, and worshipped him as such.

The very first words of the passage proclaim that Jesus was truly God. "In very nature God" or "in his true nature God" is the English rendition found in modern translations; the KJV has "in the form of God". The Greek, which is authoritative, says "en morphe Theou" (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ). The KJV has "in the form of God". "Morphe" is the Greek word for "form", in a sense; but you cannot understand what was meant by Greek usages of that word unless you understand that for the Greeks the "form" was the essential nature which determined the being of a thing. In modern English, on the other hand, "form" often signifies mere appearance without substance. (Even in 1611 the KJ translators used the word "form" at II Tim 3:5 -- "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof" to indicate the appearance without the reality, although the other uses of "form" in the KJ translation, at II Tim 1:13, the same letter, and here at Phil. 2, and at Rom. 2:20 and 6:17 signify the reality or substance, not mere appearance.)

If, today, one says "who was in the form of God" many will think that this means "was kind of like God" whereas the meaning of the Greek (and the KJV) really is "was truly God" or "had the essential being of God" or "was in His true nature God". Again, today, many will think "took the form of a servant" (morphe doulou labor, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) means "kind of appeared as a servant, but didn't really become one" whereas the real meaning, both of the Greek and of the KJV, is that Christ truly became a man, truly took on (labon) human nature. The intent, both of the Greek and the KJV, is to make clear the true divinity of Christ -- that he was really and eternally God -- and also the true humanity of Christ -- that He truly became a man. He was fully God and fully man. But the English words "was in the form of God" or "form of a servant" can easily be misunderstood because modern English usage has shifted, so that phrases like "was in very nature God" and "took the very nature of a servant" help keep today's readers from seriously misconstruing the text to weaken or deny the full assertion that Christ was God, and the assertion that Christ became man. The phrase "was in very nature God" in modern translations, in particular, helps to safeguard -- to make very clear -- the Christological Hymn's strong assertion that Christ Jesus truly is God.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 12:21 PM
Well, this is just my opinion on how the verses can be read... Of the NASB translation (Philppians 2:6-7)

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

On earth, Jesus came as a servant. He served God, by doing his will. John writes in 6:38, "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."
Jesus on earth as man, was in the form of a servant. A servant of God. A servant, is not that of equality.

Of the KJV translation of Philippians 2:6, this is how I understand it.

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Who – That is Jesus

Being in the form of God – The son of God, the Messiah and Christ, born of the flesh, of the virgin Mary.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God – Jesus did not in his mind or attitude, think it was robbery or stealing to be considered equal with God.

So although the two verses can be read differently, IMO, there is no contradiction or denial of the deity of Christ, but they can give a different insight on the verses.

Here is the part I have a problem with-"did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," When you let this statement speak for itself what is it saying? Isn't it an ambiguous statement? I realize we can rationalize and make it say whatever we want, but doesn't it add confusion to this verse? It can mean that Jesus was not able to grasp equality with God, and to me this is the most logical meaning.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 12:30 PM
Evidence increases in regard to translating koine Greek because while the Bible might use a word only once, and thus not give much opportunity to discover how a word is used, newer non-biblical documents continue to be uncovered and thus words are able to be studied more and a more rounded understanding of how words were used continues to grow.

By the way, the so-called change of "at the name" to "in the name" . . . doesn't apply to the NASB. NASB has "at the name." I guess the NASB still has the worship and adoration of Jesus.

In most cases the word means to take by force, and robbery is well within the realm of this definition.

The point of George Vance Smith was that when this change of reading of the text took place in Philippians 2:6 we see the hand of an unbeliever in the Deity of Christ at work. This English reading of Philippians 2:6 stood for five hundred years before Smith set his hand to it. While the NASB did not stay with his reading of Philippians 2:10, they did stay with his reading of Philippians 2:6.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 12:38 PM
Norman, when you look at the individual parts of these two translations, they both have the same elements . . .

Both start with thought.

Both speak of being equal with God.

Bothe speak of the thought in the negative, i.e. they both use the word "not".

The difference: one says "robbery", the other says "something to be grasped."

So, you'd have to explain how "robbery" and "something to be grasped" are so radically different that the deity is affirmed by one and not by other. Frankly, when we see that this is the only difference, those phrases don't sound all that different.

The problem is not with the difference in the words "robbery" and "grasping". If they had said, "Jesus thought it not grasping to be equal with God", then you could argue word meanings, but that is not what happened here. They changed "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to an ambiguous statement, which makes one wonder what their point was. When you insert George Vance Smith into the equation, one can begin to understand that something deeper is going on.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 12:57 PM
If you remember, I started my explanation with a quotation of a few verses prior to this one. I did this because the art of reading requires us to follow an author's chain of thought from the beginning. If we focus on a single sentence taken from his discourse, we take the sentence away from Paul's point, which leads to misunderstanding. If we follow Paul's line of thought and we pay attention to his exhortation, we find Paul attempting to exhort his readers to adopt a humble attitude and treat each other as being more important than themselves. During his exhortation, he recommends that we adopt the attitude of Jesus.

Now, think to yourself. Would Paul suggest that you and I are divine beings who need to cast off our divinity in order to adopt a humble attitude? I don't think so. Paul wants us to act like Jesus. Why would he advise us to act like Jesus and then tell us that Jesus emptied himself of his deity? Is that something that you and I can do? No. The reason why Paul uses Jesus as our example is because we are fully capable of doing what Jesus did. Paul wants us to act like Jesus and he expects us to be able to do what Jesus did. This important piece of information informs us as to what Paul means when he says, "Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped".

There are different ways that one person might be equal to another person. A person might be the same height, or the same weight, or the same race, nationality, gender. Even two people who are of different socio/economic classes or grew up in different neighborhoods in America are treated equal before the Law. The Law applies to everyone equally. Another way a person might be equal to another person is the two of them might be equal in character, honesty, loyalty, wisdom, and such things. In short, people can be deemed equal in whatever way we want to classify people.

In what way were Jesus and God equal? Were they equal physically? Not really. Were they equal in character? Yes. But Paul wouldn't suggest that Jesus gave up being equal with God in character, or faithfulness, or goodness, or righteousness, or love. Paul is telling his readers to act like Jesus and so whatever we do, we need to give up equality with God the way Jesus did. Some argue that Jesus gave up being equal with God in the nature of his being. While this might be true, it isn't something that you and I can do. We can't give up or transform the nature of our being, so Paul isn't asking us to emulate that. What other way did Jesus stop being equal with God? He stopped being equal in status. And THIS is how we can imitate our master.

Even while Jesus was living as a man, he deserved our worship because of his high status. He had every right to insist that people bow, curtsy, and serve him. Everyone on earth should serve him and obey him. Jesus is more important than any other human being. He is equal in status with God. And Jesus had every right to behave in a way that demonstrates his importance and his power. But, Paul says, Jesus did not consider being equal in status with God a thing to hold tightly. Rather than behaving in a way that showed his status, he was humble and treated others as being more important that himself, even though in reality he was the most important human being.

Paul wants us to adopt the attitude of Jesus, which was humility. He argues that if anyone had a right to be treated as being equal in status with God, Jesus did. But Jesus humbled himself taking on the role of a bond-servant. And we can copy Jesus, not by giving up our deity, but by humbling ourselves and also taking on the role of a bond-servant.

You ask, "in what way was Jesus equal to God?" The form of this question allows for two God's. If you had replaced God with Father than there would only be one God. God the Son, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, are all equally one God. You wouldn't ask if the Father was equal to God, would you?

The change they made, after five hundred years of the Bible in English, brings ambiguity into the question of Christ's Deity, and that is my point. Did George Vance Smith have a major role to play in this change? The obvious answer would seem to be yes.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 03:10 PM
Yes. The two sentences are different in meaning. The KJV swings the emphasis on the fact that Jesus was equal with God, which is true. The NASB throws the emphasis on the idea that Jesus, while being equal with God, did not consider this equality something to hold tightly. I believe the NASB is closer to Paul's intended meaning.

I am glad that you acknowledge that there was a change made in the reading of Philippians 2:6. The emphasis in the old reading was the Deity of Christ, while the new reading detracts from that Deity. The old reading stood for 500 years. It is essential that we understand that it was a Unitarian who changed it, and that the church as a whole rejected that change for more than 70 years.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 03:28 PM
I am glad that you acknowledge that there was a change made in the reading of Philippians 2:6. The emphasis in the old reading was the Deity of Christ, while the new reading detracts from that Deity. The old reading stood for 500 years. It is essential that we understand that it was a Unitarian who changed it, and that the church as a whole rejected that change for more than 70 years.I doubt that he changed it because he was a Unitarian with an agenda. He changed it, it would seem, because it better fit the Greek and expressed Paul's intended meaning, which should be the goal of any translation.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 03:47 PM
The passage in question (Phil. 2:5-11) -- the Christological Hymn, as it is called -- is one of the most important passages in Scripture, and one of the earliest. It could even be the part of the NT which was written first since the letter to the Philippians is an early letter, and since Paul may be quoting here a hymn which was familiar to his readers. If that is so, this would be a very early hymn of worship to Christ Jesus our God, for if Paul quotes it, probably assuming that his readers were familiar with it, it must considerably predate the letter.

What is interesting about that early date is the letter's highly developed Christology: it strongly asserts both Jesus' full divinity and His full humanity. (That dual assertion is, as I pointed out above, a feature of John 1, Hebrews, and other passages giving a high Christology -- that is, proclaiming Christ's divinity -- as well. That is, understanding that this is a very early passage of Scripture helps emphasize that from the very beginning the first Christians recognized Jesus as God, and worshipped him as such.

The very first words of the passage proclaim that Jesus was truly God. "In very nature God" or "in his true nature God" is the English rendition found in modern translations; the KJV has "in the form of God". The Greek, which is authoritative, says "en morphe Theou" (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ). The KJV has "in the form of God". "Morphe" is the Greek word for "form", in a sense; but you cannot understand what was meant by Greek usages of that word unless you understand that for the Greeks the "form" was the essential nature which determined the being of a thing. In modern English, on the other hand, "form" often signifies mere appearance without substance. (Even in 1611 the KJ translators used the word "form" at II Tim 3:5 -- "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof" to indicate the appearance without the reality, although the other uses of "form" in the KJ translation, at II Tim 1:13, the same letter, and here at Phil. 2, and at Rom. 2:20 and 6:17 signify the reality or substance, not mere appearance.)

If, today, one says "who was in the form of God" many will think that this means "was kind of like God" whereas the meaning of the Greek (and the KJV) really is "was truly God" or "had the essential being of God" or "was in His true nature God". Again, today, many will think "took the form of a servant" (morphe doulou labor, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) means "kind of appeared as a servant, but didn't really become one" whereas the real meaning, both of the Greek and of the KJV, is that Christ truly became a man, truly took on (labon) human nature. The intent, both of the Greek and the KJV, is to make clear the true divinity of Christ -- that he was really and eternally God -- and also the true humanity of Christ -- that He truly became a man. He was fully God and fully man. But the English words "was in the form of God" or "form of a servant" can easily be misunderstood because modern English usage has shifted, so that phrases like "was in very nature God" and "took the very nature of a servant" help keep today's readers from seriously misconstruing the text to weaken or deny the full assertion that Christ was God, and the assertion that Christ became man. The phrase "was in very nature God" in modern translations, in particular, helps to safeguard -- to make very clear -- the Christological Hymn's strong assertion that Christ Jesus truly is God.

I can agree with what you are saying, that the translators of the new translations didn't alter the first half of verse six, but that doesn't change the fact that they changed the second half. The poetic nature of the bible, where the second half reinforces the first half, is found in many of the books. The first half says, "Jesus in the form of God", and the second half says, "equal to God". Both halves agree, and then you have the conjunction, but, and it goes on to show that while Jesus is God he took on the nature of man.

The new translations say, Jesus is God, though he couldn't grasp being God, and then you add the next verse which starts with the conjunction "but", and yet there is no contrast from "Jesus couldn't grasp being God" to "being a servant.
In verse seven we see the identical pattern of reinforcing the first half of the verse with the second half of the verse. Verse seven says, "being in the form of a bond-servant", and follows with the backup of "the likeness of man". Do you follow what I am saying.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 03:53 PM
I doubt that he changed it because he was a Unitarian with an agenda. He changed it, it would seem, because it better fit the Greek and expressed Paul's intended meaning, which should be the goal of any translation.

Well you can't deny that he was a Unitarian, nor can you deny that he expressed a bias against the Deity of Christ. I know I wouldn't want him rewriting my Bible, no more than I would prefer to have my President rewrite the Constitution.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 04:32 PM
You ask, "in what way was Jesus equal to God?" The form of this question allows for two God's. If you had replaced God with Father than there would only be one God. God the Son, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, are all equally one God. You wouldn't ask if the Father was equal to God, would you?

The change they made, after five hundred years of the Bible in English, brings ambiguity into the question of Christ's Deity, and that is my point. Did George Vance Smith have a major role to play in this change? The obvious answer would seem to be yes.Okay, let's suppose that he did. The next question is, was he right? Let's not assume that the KJV was right. And let's bear in mind that mistakes can go unchallenged for hundreds of years until someone begins to ask questions.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 04:50 PM
Well you can't deny that he was a Unitarian, nor can you deny that he expressed a bias against the Deity of Christ. I know I wouldn't want him rewriting my Bible, no more than I would prefer to have my President rewrite the Constitution.Sure we don't want translators to rewrite the Bible. We want translators to express the Bible's objective meaning in our own language. The question isn't whether the translator was a Unitarian; the question is whether the translator understood the passage and conveyed the meaning of the passage to English speakers such that the readers of the English version would come to understand what the inspired text was actually saying. Who cares whether the translator was Unitarian or Catholic or Protestant or Jewish. Did the translator get it right or not. That's all we really want to know.

Bear in mind, though, our English translations are not inspired scripture, including the KJV. The inspired text is the Hebrew and Greek text, from which our translations are derived. If you want to read the inspired text, then learn how to read Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. People think that the modern translations are the product of some kind of conspiracy to attack Christian dogma. It would never occur to them that the KJV might have been the product of a plot to misinform believers during the 17th century. I'm not suggesting it was; all I'm saying is that we need to be careful not to uncritically assign more value to the past than it deserves. I think my fellow brothers and sisters are intelligent enough and savvy and should be allowed the freedom to examine their English Bibles against the original text and when finding a poorly translated passage, to simply make a mental note of the passage or write a note in the margins of their Bible.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 04:54 PM
Okay, let's suppose that he did. The next question is, was he right? Let's not assume that the KJV was right. And let's bear in mind that mistakes can go unchallenged for hundreds of years until someone begins to ask questions.

You are asking me if I think George Vance Smith, the Unitarian, was right? He obviously was not right about being a Unitarian was he?

Just looking at the verses, and considering the poetic form they take, I would have to say, No he was not right. Jesus not being able to grasp being God does not reinforce the first part of the verse where it says that Jesus is God. And then you examine verse seven which takes on the form of a contrast to verse six, and you find no contrast between Jesus not being able to grasp being God, and Jesus being a mere mortal. When you look closer at verse seven you see the reinforcement of Jesus being a bond-servant, with Jesus being in the likeness of man.

No, I know George Vance Smith was not right when he changed the whole poetic form in order to diminish the reinforcement of the first part of verse six.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 05:03 PM
Sure we don't want translators to rewrite the Bible. We want translators to express the Bible's objective meaning in our own language. The question isn't whether the translator was a Unitarian; the question is whether the translator understood the passage and conveyed the meaning of the passage to English speakers such that the readers of the English version would come to understand what the inspired text was actually saying. Who cares whether the translator was Unitarian or Catholic or Protestant or Jewish. Did the translator get it right or not. That's all we really want to know.

Hopefully the translators will be inspired by God in their endeavor. Hopefully we know that the Unitarian was not inspired by God to be a Unitarian.


Bear in mind, though, our English translations are not inspired scripture, including the KJV. The inspired text is the Hebrew and Greek text, from which our translations are derived. If you want to read the inspired text, then learn how to read Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. People think that the modern translations are the product of some kind of conspiracy to attack Christian dogma. It would never occur to them that the KJV might have been the product of a plot to misinform believers during the 17th century. I'm not suggesting it was; all I'm saying is that we need to be careful not to uncritically assign more value to the past than it deserves. I think my fellow brothers and sisters are intelligent enough and savvy and should be allowed the freedom to examine their English Bibles against the original text and when finding a poorly translated passage, to simply make a mental note of the passage or write a note in the margins of their Bible.

We have an English translation of Philippians 2:6 that was consistent for 500 years, so what information did George Vance Smith bring to lite that would reinforce his belief that the Church had been wrong for 500 years.

RogerW
Sep 8th 2012, 05:04 PM
Sure we don't want translators to rewrite the Bible. We want translators to express the Bible's objective meaning in our own language. The question isn't whether the translator was a Unitarian; the question is whether the translator understood the passage and conveyed the meaning of the passage to English speakers such that the readers of the English version would come to understand what the inspired text was actually saying. Who cares whether the translator was Unitarian or Catholic or Protestant or Jewish. Did the translator get it right or not. That's all we really want to know.

Bear in mind, though, our English translations are not inspired scripture, including the KJV. The inspired text is the Hebrew and Greek text, from which our translations are derived. If you want to read the inspired text, then learn how to read Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. People think that the modern translations are the product of some kind of conspiracy to attack Christian dogma. It would never occur to them that the KJV might have been the product of a plot to misinform believers during the 17th century. I'm not suggesting it was; all I'm saying is that we need to be careful not to uncritically assign more value to the past than it deserves. I think my fellow brothers and sisters are intelligent enough and savvy and should be allowed the freedom to examine their English Bibles against the original text and when finding a poorly translated passage, to simply make a mental note of the passage or write a note in the margins of their Bible.

I tend to think the vast translations are the product of Christians having a noble desire to encourage every man to read the Bible. I think they truly desire to produce a translation that is so easy to read and understand that all men would be drawn to Christ upon reading it. Sadly, in this noble cause I tend to think they play the devil's advocate. Instead of bringing us something better, they have taken that which was a clear English translation like Ph 2:6 and made it as clear as mud. I think the better course is to accept that no man can improve upon what God in His providence gave the English speaking world. Like it or not, the KJV surpasses all translations in longevity, and it was/is not broken, but rather accomplished and is accomplishing what God intended...many souls coming into His eternal kingdom.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 05:34 PM
I tend to think the vast translations are the product of Christians having a noble desire to encourage every man to read the Bible. I think they truly desire to produce a translation that is so easy to read and understand that all men would be drawn to Christ upon reading it. Sadly, in this noble cause I tend to think they play the devil's advocate. Instead of bringing us something better, they have taken that which was a clear English translation like Ph 2:6 and made it as clear as mud. I think the better course is to accept that no man can improve upon what God in His providence gave the English speaking world. Like it or not, the KJV surpasses all translations in longevity, and it was/is not broken, but rather accomplished and is accomplishing what God intended...many souls coming into His eternal kingdom.I honestly am shocked by your post. I can not accept the premise that the KJV is an inspired text.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 05:43 PM
Hopefully the translators will be inspired by God in their endeavor. Hopefully we know that the Unitarian was not inspired by God to be a Unitarian.Again, the salient question is whether the translator has conveyed Paul's intended meaning. Whether the translator was a Unitarian or a Martian is irrelevant.


We have an English translation of Philippians 2:6 that was consistent for 500 years, so what information did George Vance Smith bring to lite that would reinforce his belief that the Church had been wrong for 500 years.Again, you assign motive and dismiss the translation on the basis of some imagined agenda. This is not how we approach our scriptures. Neither the KJV nor the NASB or any other translation is an inspired text. What Paul actually wrote and what he actually meant to say is the inspired text. If Paul didn't intend to defend the Trinity Doctrine in Philippians, and if the KJV was written in such a way as to superimpose the Trinity Doctrine onto the passage, then the KJV, not the modern translations, is agenda driven error. Don't ASSUME the KJV was right, check it out yourself. And don't ASSUME that truth gets better with age, as if 500 years was a guarantee of the veracity of a statement.

RogerW
Sep 8th 2012, 05:47 PM
I honestly am shocked by your post. I can not accept the premise that the KJV is an inspired text.

You don't see the difference between providential inspiration and providential preservation?

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 06:46 PM
Again, the salient question is whether the translator has conveyed Paul's intended meaning. Whether the translator was a Unitarian or a Martian is irrelevant.

Would you approve of Satan rewriting the Bible? His motive wouldn't be important, would it? We just need to know how smart he is.


Again, you assign motive and dismiss the translation on the basis of some imagined agenda. This is not how we approach our scriptures. Neither the KJV nor the NASB or any other translation is an inspired text. What Paul actually wrote and what he actually meant to say is the inspired text. If Paul didn't intend to defend the Trinity Doctrine in Philippians, and if the KJV was written in such a way as to superimpose the Trinity Doctrine onto the passage, then the KJV, not the modern translations, is agenda driven error. Don't ASSUME the KJV was right, check it out yourself. And don't ASSUME that truth gets better with age, as if 500 years was a guarantee of the veracity of a statement.

You keep going back to the KJB, but this scripture was set in English 229 years before the KJB. We are talking about someone wanting to change the Bible, and that person not believing in the Deity of Christ. Who in their right mind would want someone like that revising what was the established Word of God? No good could come of it, and it hasn't. You don't believe we have the inspired Word of God, and if it is not inspired, then we only have, "hath God said".

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 06:48 PM
You are asking me if I think George Vance Smith, the Unitarian, was right? He obviously was not right about being a Unitarian was he?Irrelevant. We determine the validity of a translation by comparing the English text with the Greek text. We have no reason to perform a background check on the translator. The question is simple, did he get it right or wrong?


Just looking at the verses, and considering the poetic form they take, I would have to say, No he was not right.I'm not seeing the poetry.


Jesus not being able to grasp being God does not reinforce the first part of the verse where it says that Jesus is God.My challenge is to get you to examine the assumptions you are making as you read the text. So please allow me to show them to you. Let's quote the KJV, and I will assume for the sake of this exercise that the KJV is a good translation of the verse.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . .

You insist that Paul is making a statement about the deity of Christ here. But is he really? I admit that your interpretation is one possible interpretation among a couple of options. Give a set of assumptions, the text seems to say that. But I want you to consider whether this KJV passage might be saying something else. The reason why many of us seem to harp on the idea of "context" so much is the fact that we have learned that simple sentences taken in isolation from the context convey more than one possible meaning.

The premise that Paul is defending or asserting the deity of Jesus in verse 6 is based on our assumed meaning of three words in that sentence.

Form of God:
Here we assume that Paul has the nature of God's being in mind. To our ears, the concept of "form" involves the shape of a thing, the structure of a thing, or the essential nature of a thing. Given this definition of "form", we assume Paul has just asserted that Jesus exists with the essential nature of God.

robbery
I don't know what idea comes to your mind when you read the term "robbery", but I can't help thinking of a guy in a ski mask with a gun. The term comes from the old German "rubr", which means "to snatch". If we commit robbery, we are taking something that isn't ours.

equal
Having begun with the assumption that Paul's message concerns itself with the essential being of Jesus, we conclude that to be equal with God is to be ontologically equal. Anyone performing a study of metaphysics and the nature of being and existence will come to a passage like this and "hear" that Jesus and God were a perfect match in essence. If we list all the properties that define God as being God and define his existence as a being, we would find that Jesus had all of these same properties. The being of Jesus is equal with the being of God.

To paraphrase this verse then, in terms of our assumed definitions of the words, Paul is saying that the being of Jesus is equal with the being of God because Jesus existed with the nature of God and Jesus did not consider that he took upon himself something that wasn't already his. He didn't rob God's nature, he already had it.

But, is this what Paul actually meant to say?

To examine another possibility, let's bring in the next verse.

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,

Form of a servant:
Here the same Greek word, "morphe" is being used to talk both about a person's social class and his employment. Remember, we are studying this passage in the KJV translation. So I am not relying on a modern bias. We are reading from the KJV, which correctly compares and contrasts two "forms" or "morphe" of Jesus, who existed in the "morphe of God" but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the "morphe of a servant." A valid comparison demands a balanced connotation of the term "morphe". Otherwise Paul would be comparing apples to oranges as we say in our idiom. When we accuse someone of comparing apples with oranges we are accusing them of not making a valid comparison.

Paul is making a valid comparison. He is comparing the "form of God" with the "form of a servant" and he expects us to know in what respect the form of God can be contrasted with the form of a servant. The contrast centers on what we expect from those of reputation as compared with those who have no reputation. How do we treat a famous person of renown and great status, as compared with a servant?

Now, since Paul is making a valid contrast between the high station of God and the low station of a servant, suggesting that Jesus made himself of no reputation and took on the role of a servant, then our earlier assumption that the "morphe of God" was talking about the "being of God". We were mistaken to conclude that verse 6 was talking about the "being of God" and that Paul was asserting that Jesus and God were of the same essence, identical in nature. We come to learn that the Greeks used the term "morphe" to indicate what a think looked like. While Jesus walked around "looking like God", he made himself of no reputation and thus he "looked like a servant."

Paul sets out to contrast the high status that Jesus deserved, with the low status that he adopted. Verse 6, even in the KJV isn't talking about the deity of Christ, it is talking about the reputation, high status, of both God and Christ, and verse 7, even in the KJV, is talking about what Jesus did to humble himself as we should also humble ourselves.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 07:00 PM
You don't see the difference between providential inspiration and providential preservation?What I see is the preservation of the original text, which is inspired, and the good will of believers to bring that intended meaning to the common man in their own language.

BroRog
Sep 8th 2012, 07:07 PM
Would you approve of Satan rewriting the Bible? His motive wouldn't be important, would it? We just need to know how smart he is.As I say, I do not approve of anyone, including Satan or even myself, rewriting the Bible. This does not change the fact that the focus of our evaluation of a translation should be the merits of the translation, not on the reputation of the translator.


You keep going back to the KJB, but this scripture was set in English 229 years before the KJB. We are talking about someone wanting to change the Bible, and that person not believing in the Deity of Christ.I understand your accusation. My suggested course of action is to evaluate the translation to see whether the translator has conveyed the intended meaning of the words of Paul.


Who in their right mind would want someone like that revising what was the established Word of God?I can see you affirm that a translation of the Bible can be "the established word of God", which is an assumption I don't hold. The writings in their original language are inspired. A particular translation might be, but we have no way of telling since the Apostles are not around to say one way or the other.

RogerW
Sep 8th 2012, 07:33 PM
What I see is the preservation of the original text, which is inspired, and the good will of believers to bring that intended meaning to the common man in their own language.

Where do we find this providentially preserved "original text"? How can the inspired "original text" be translated into our own language if we don't know where to find the original text? Either God has providentially preserved His Word, and we have always had it, or God has not providentially preserved His Word as He has promised He would. And yes, it is a fact that God has used man to make sure His inspired Word is and always will be preserved.

RogerW
Sep 8th 2012, 07:40 PM
Irrelevant. We determine the validity of a translation by comparing the English text with the Greek text. We have no reason to perform a background check on the translator. The question is simple, did he get it right or wrong?

I'm not seeing the poetry.

My challenge is to get you to examine the assumptions you are making as you read the text. So please allow me to show them to you. Let's quote the KJV, and I will assume for the sake of this exercise that the KJV is a good translation of the verse.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . .

You insist that Paul is making a statement about the deity of Christ here. But is he really? I admit that your interpretation is one possible interpretation among a couple of options.

Are you sure your assumption that there may be more than one option comes from reading the KJV? Could this assumption not be the result of reading other translations? Because I never questioned that Paul is referring to the deity of Christ reading my KJV.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 08:07 PM
robbery
I don't know what idea comes to your mind when you read the term "robbery", but I can't help thinking of a guy in a ski mask with a gun. The term comes from the old German "rubr", which means "to snatch". If we commit robbery, we are taking something that isn't ours.

This single word, "robbery" is at the heart of our debate and you claim the English word "robbery" really comes from an old German "rubr" which means to snatch. If we snatch something that isn't ours then it becomes robbery, but let us go further back then just the Authorized Version. Lets go back to the translation from which much of the Authorized version comes from, which is John Wycliffe's translation.

Philippians 2:6 (Excerpt from John Wycliffe"s translation) "demyde not raueyn, that hym silf were euene to God". Translation of "demyde" is "judged" and translation of "raueyn" is "swindled" as found in the NASB. Wycliffe's translation reads, "judged not swindling, that him self were equal to God." You argument that the word "robbery" should have been translated "snatched" without any reference to thievery doesn't hold water.

chad
Sep 8th 2012, 09:38 PM
Ok, here is my opinion on Philippians 2:6 NASB translation, regarding the word grasped.

Again, as stated in my previous post, I think Paul is writing about our attitudes and our thinking.

Starting in verse Philippians 2:5 -

Have this attitude in yourselves – Paul writes having this attitude in yourself. The believer should have the same attitude as Christ.

which was also in Christ Jesus – The same attitude that Christ had regarding serving and equality with God.

Verse 6 who, although He existed in the form of God – Jesus existed in the form of God, as a man here on earth. Conceived of the Holy Spirit, by the Virgin Mary as also declared by the Angel Gabriel (Luke 1:26-38), and pronounced at Baptism by God , this is my son. (Luke 3:22).

did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped – Jesus came as a bond-servant (2:7 NASB). Now a servant is not equal to the master, and a servant is not greater than a master. Jesus came as a servant, therefore in his attitude was of a servant “I have come to do my fathers will” (John 6:38). In his attitude as a servant, he did not consider equality with God, something to be grasped.

For in John 13:16, John records Jesus saying 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (NIV 84)

In this same attitude. Paul writes have this attitude in yourself, so, we as humans are not equal to God. It is not something that can be grasped. We can become servants and
children of God, through Christ, but equality – no.


7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2&version=NIV1984#fen-NIV1984-29383b)] of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


After Jesus death and resurrection, Paul writes God exalted him to the highest place, that is at the right hand of God, in equality.



Here is the part I have a problem with-"did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," When you let this statement speak for itself what is it saying? Isn't it an ambiguous statement? I realize we can rationalize and make it say whatever we want, but doesn't it add confusion to this verse? It can mean that Jesus was not able to grasp equality with God, and to me this is the most logical meaning.

Saved7
Sep 8th 2012, 09:44 PM
IMO, the verse is speaking about Christs attitude. He came as a servant and while on earth he served. In verse 9, Paul writes, God exalted him to the highest place. (We know that is the right hand of God in the heavens. Equal to God. Christs attitude is of a servant, while on earth, which is the opposite to Satans attitude who thought he could be exalted as God)

In verse 5, Paul writes, our attitude should be the same as Christ, that is as of servants towards others.

Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

This is the way I understand it too. Though He knew who He was, He didn't walk about taking advantage of His power, but instead made Himself low in order to save.

rejoice44
Sep 8th 2012, 10:43 PM
Verse 6 who, although He existed in the form of God – Jesus existed in the form of God, as a man here on earth. Conceived of the Holy Spirit, by the Virgin Mary as also declared by the Angel Gabriel (Luke 1:26-38), and pronounced at Baptism by God , this is my son. (Luke 3:22).

The Deity of Christ goes beyond his manifestation. Jesus created all things. God spoke and it was that Word of God that created all things. Jesus is that Word.


did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped – Jesus came as a bond-servant (2:7 NASB). Now a servant is not equal to the master, and a servant is not greater than a master. Jesus came as a servant, therefore in his attitude was of a servant “I have come to do my fathers will” (John 6:38). In his attitude as a servant, he did not consider equality with God, something to be grasped.

I would remind you that Jesus was not the servant of the Father, but rather the Son of the Father. Jesus took on the form of a bond-servant as an example of how we are to treat one another. Jesus took on the form of man so that he might be the sacrifice for us.


For in John 13:16, John records Jesus saying 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (NIV 84)

Jesus is not referring to himself as the servant in this scripture, but rather Jesus is referring to himself as the master.


In this same attitude. Paul writes have this attitude in yourself, so, we as humans are not equal to God. It is not something that can be grasped. We can become servants and
children of God, through Christ, but equality – no.

I must ask you; Do you see God as singularly the Father? When you say God, are you thinking the Father? The Bible refers to Jesus as the arm of God, and the Word of God. Are the arm of God and the Word of God not an integral part of God?

After Jesus death and resurrection, Paul writes God exalted him to the highest place, that is at the right hand of God, in equality.

When you interpret this verse it is essential that you don't forget the scripture that states that all things were created by Him, and for Him.

Isaiah 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:


John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Jesus is the arm and hand who created all things, so I have a hard time relating that Jesus was not equal to God. When the word God is used, you should not perceive it as referring to just the Father, but rather the Trinity.

BroRog
Sep 9th 2012, 06:19 PM
Are you sure your assumption that there may be more than one option comes from reading the KJV? Could this assumption not be the result of reading other translations? Because I never questioned that Paul is referring to the deity of Christ reading my KJV.No. There really is more than one way to read a sentence, any sentence, even a verse taken from the Bible.

Let me illustrate this with the following sentence.


"I need less shadow, lighten it up."

Context 1: Photography

I am taking a picture and I want my assistant to move a screen so that I get less shadow and more light on the subject.
So I say, "I need less shadow, lighten it up."

Context 2: Make up artist.

I am an actor on a stage and I want my make-up artist to brighten my face paint.
So I say, "I need less shadow, lighten it up."

Context 3: At the beach.
I am lounging on the beach, sitting in a beach chair and I want my wife to move the sunshade to allow more light to shine on me so that I might get a better tan.
So I say, "I need less shadow, lighten it up."

The point is, the context informs how we understand the sentence. If all we had was the sentence, "I need less shadow, lighten it up." we might imagine any number of different meanings depending on the context we assume.

What I hoped to demonstrate in my previous post was the fact that the sentence "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . ." can be taken more than one way. Just as I demonstrated above, any verse in the Bible can be taken more than one way, when considered outside a specific context.

Context 1: Bible College lecture on the deity of Christ.
Jesus was God in both his identity and his essence. Therefore it says,
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . ."

Context 2: Paul's exportation to humble ourselves as Christ humbled himself.
While Jesus lived among human beings he had the role of God, but he took on the role of a servant instead, therefore it says,
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . ."

The same verse in the KJV can be taken more than one way depending on the context. And so, we must be prepared to place the verse back into the context and allow it to work along side the other verses to make the point Paul wants to make.



What I demonstrated was the fact that even the KJV, understood correctly, does not have Paul talking about the deity of Christ in Philippians 2:6.

BroRog
Sep 9th 2012, 06:22 PM
Where do we find this providentially preserved "original text"? How can the inspired "original text" be translated into our own language if we don't know where to find the original text? Either God has providentially preserved His Word, and we have always had it, or God has not providentially preserved His Word as He has promised He would. And yes, it is a fact that God has used man to make sure His inspired Word is and always will be preserved.I think you can find the text in most book stores on-line.

RogerW
Sep 9th 2012, 09:19 PM
I think you can find the text in most book stores on-line.

The original manuscripts are lost and gone forever. There are no originals of either Old Testament manuscripts or New Testament manuscripts left. Why would God go through the trouble of inspiring scripture, only to have a few read it, and then be lost forever? Because as well as inspiration, God has promised to preserve forever His inspired Word. But not His Word only, but even His Word(s). If the words of Scripture keep changing from one translation to another how can we ever determine which translation (all/none) God is providentially preserving?

If we believe what Jesus said, if we believe the promises of Psalm 12:6,7 and 1 Peter 1:24,25, it is absolutely necessary for us to find God's words!
A few scriptures quoted here should help enforce the fact that God's words matter, and this is not just a small thing.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Psalm 50:16,17 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

Psalm 107:10,11 Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron; Because they rebelled against the words of God,
and contemned the counsel of the most High:

Psalm 119:57 Thou art my portion, O LORD: I have said that I would keep thy words.

Psalm 119:139 My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words.

Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Prov 5:7 Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of my mouth.

RogerW
Sep 9th 2012, 09:36 PM
No. There really is more than one way to read a sentence, any sentence, even a verse taken from the Bible.

Let me illustrate this with the following sentence.


"I need less shadow, lighten it up."

Context 1: Photography

I am taking a picture and I want my assistant to move a screen so that I get less shadow and more light on the subject.
So I say, "I need less shadow, lighten it up."

Context 2: Make up artist.

I am an actor on a stage and I want my make-up artist to brighten my face paint.
So I say, "I need less shadow, lighten it up."

Context 3: At the beach.
I am lounging on the beach, sitting in a beach chair and I want my wife to move the sunshade to allow more light to shine on me so that I might get a better tan.
So I say, "I need less shadow, lighten it up."

The point is, the context informs how we understand the sentence. If all we had was the sentence, "I need less shadow, lighten it up." we might imagine any number of different meanings depending on the context we assume.

What I hoped to demonstrate in my previous post was the fact that the sentence "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . ." can be taken more than one way. Just as I demonstrated above, any verse in the Bible can be taken more than one way, when considered outside a specific context.

Context 1: Bible College lecture on the deity of Christ.
Jesus was God in both his identity and his essence. Therefore it says,
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . ."

Context 2: Paul's exportation to humble ourselves as Christ humbled himself.
While Jesus lived among human beings he had the role of God, but he took on the role of a servant instead, therefore it says,
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God . . ."

The same verse in the KJV can be taken more than one way depending on the context. And so, we must be prepared to place the verse back into the context and allow it to work along side the other verses to make the point Paul wants to make.



What I demonstrated was the fact that even the KJV, understood correctly, does not have Paul talking about the deity of Christ in Philippians 2:6.

That may be what you intended to demonstrate, but I read this as human reasoning. The phrase "form of God" is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God.

ETHOS
Sep 9th 2012, 09:38 PM
NASB Philippians 2:6-7 (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses?

What does “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” mean? Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God?

And if this translation is correct, why does the conjunction “but”, in verse seven, occur?

Doesn’t the conjunction “but” indicate a transition? Where is the transition, if Jesus could not be equal to God, and then Jesus empties himself?

I am at a loss as to how these translators justify changing the Authorized Version to read in a way that denies the Deity of Jesus, and that also makes no sense in the form that it occurs in.

Can someone please explain what makes it right?


Jesus was not equal to God as he said "the father is greater than I am."-John 14:8

For God's Son Jesus to come to earth he had to give up all his heavenly glory as "The Word" and come to earth as a human being.

ethos

rejoice44
Sep 9th 2012, 10:14 PM
I can see you affirm that a translation of the Bible can be "the established word of God", which is an assumption I don't hold. The writings in their original language are inspired. A particular translation might be, but we have no way of telling since the Apostles are not around to say one way or the other.

By "established" I meant "accepted", or "recognized" by the living Church to be the Word of God. You remember the verse, "My sheep hear my voice".

A list of the recognized English translations, starting with Wiclif 1380.

1. Wiclif 1380

2. Tyndale 1534

3. Matthews 1537

4. Cranmer 1539

5. Great Bible 1541

6. Geneva 1557

7. Bishop's Bible 1568

8. Rheims 1582

9. Authorized Version 1611

These are the translations that were recognized and used by the Church. All of these Bibles have a form of "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". This time span is 231 years from the first recognized English translation to the Authorized Version. There is also a time span of 270 years where no new translation is produced and used by the Church.


10. English Revised Version (ERV) 1881

The English Revised Version changed the reading of "thought it not robbery to be equal to God" to "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God". It was the Unitarian who did not believe in the Deity of Christ who worked on Philippians chapter two, therefore this reading shouldn't have been a suprise to anyone.

When you look at the time span from 1611 until 1881 and see that no new accepted translation came out, then you understand why everyone referred to the King James Bible as the "Authorized Version".

It should also be noted that while the "ERV" translation committee was authorized by the House of Commons to revise the Authorized Version, the finished translation was never accepted as an Authorized Version by the House of Commons. They never expected the translation committee to altar so much of the Bible, nor did they approve of George Vance Smith being on the translation committee.

What new information did George Vance Smith receive that gave him the authority to rewrite this verse?

rejoice44
Sep 9th 2012, 10:41 PM
Jesus was not equal to God as he said "the father is greater than I am."-John 14:28

For God's Son Jesus to come to earth he had to give up all his heavenly glory as "The Word" and come to earth as a human being.

ethos

I disagree with you that Jesus gave up all his heavenly glory. When the Word was clothed with humanity, the Word still had power. Jesus is the arm of God, at least figuratively, and as such we must relate Jesus and the Father, as our own bodies are to us.

Does your arm decide what to do, or do you decide, and then your arm does it. Is your body equal to you? We are made in God's image, and we have a body, soul, and spirit. Can you separate your body from your soul and spirit? Is your body less equal to you? Does your body obey your commands? I believe we have to think outside of the box. Our ways and thoughts are not God's ways and thoughts.

BroRog
Sep 10th 2012, 03:23 AM
That may be what you intended to demonstrate, but I read this as human reasoning. The phrase "form of God" is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God.Many people think their interpretation is the "natural" one. :)

BroRog
Sep 10th 2012, 03:37 AM
The original manuscripts are lost and gone forever. There are no originals of either Old Testament manuscripts or New Testament manuscripts left.Actually, we have over 5000 original manuscripts of the New Testament. Perhaps you mean to say that the original autographs are not extant.


If the words of Scripture keep changing from one translation to another how can we ever determine which translation (all/none) God is providentially preserving?
As I said, we have over 5000 original manuscripts, containing all or parts of the New Testament. Those who produced our English translations were using these manuscripts to translate the Bible from Greek to English. These English translations will change over time, but the original manuscripts will never change and remain an accurate record of what Jesus and the Apostles taught.


If we believe what Jesus said, if we believe the promises of Psalm 12:6,7 and 1 Peter 1:24,25, it is absolutely necessary for us to find God's words!We have Gods word in the original manuscripts, which never changes.

To preserve a translation is not good; translations need to change. We constantly need to make new translations of the Bible in order to communicate God's word in the common, every-day language that everyone understands. When someone comes out with a new translation, they aren't changing God's word, they are simply restating God's word using different wording. The only requirement of a translation is that the translator give expression to the author's original intended meaning. To the extent that a translation allows the intended meaning to surface and be understood, to that extent a translation is a good translation.

Scruffy Kid
Sep 10th 2012, 09:10 AM
The thread was started by rejoice44, whose screen name, I suppose, must refer to Philippians 4:4 -- "Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice." (Literally, "Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε πάλιν ἐρῶ χαίρετε"). Joe (TrustGzus) refers to rejoice44 as "Norman", so I presume that this is also his name. (I'm called Scruffy, or Scruff, or Scruffy Kid, because I want to continually remind myself that I'm a little child in God's sight, and one who goes astray, and gets scruffed up and messed up, too; but that God in His love -- He is our Father -- picks me up, and dusts me off, and helps me get going again.

The title question of the thread is "Philippians 2:6-7. Why?" and in the first post rejoice44 asks "can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses." However, much of the concern rejoice44 has, as also set forth in the first post, is about the translation of the verses, and the difference between the KJV (and, as he makes clear in subsequent posts, the earlier tradition of English translations as well) and modern translations.
NASB Philippians 2:6-7 (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Can someone satisfactorily explain the meaning of these two verses?

What does “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” mean? Does this mean that Jesus is not incarnate God? Specifically, Norman's concern is that the modern translations do not adequately represent the clear statement in these verses that Jesus is God.

The discussion has become entangled with two matters which -- given the thread title, and even the OP -- seem to me to be side issues: The authority of the KJV (or AV), and related issues, and the fact that one of the early renderers of modern translations was a unitarian.

The principle dialogue has been between rejoice44 and BroRog, although others have joined in. Both have made some important points. Roger (BroRog) emphasizes first -- if I rightly understand his posts -- that what is authoritative is the Greek text. With this I fully agree. Furthermore, he has argued that translations from the Greek naturally change, for two reasons. One is that the English language changes, so that a translation which conveyed a particular meaning in 1611, say, will not necessarily convey that same meaning to speakers of English in 2011. A second is that understanding of the Greek text depends upon understanding the language in which it was written, Koine Greek. When people started making translations into English -- from the 14th century on -- they had less knowledge of Koine than we have now. While people at that time had, and read, classical Greek texts -- Homer, Aristotle, Plato, Aristophanes, Thucydides, and so on -- from which to understand how Greek is used, they didn't have much context for Koine, the Greek that ordinary people (non-scholars) spoke and wrote in the 1st century. (It's as if a person later were trying to understand 21st century English texts having, for context, only Chaucer and Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, say.) But now we have lots of manuscripts from the first century in Koine -- everyday 1st century Greek -- and this gives us a basis for understanding that language better, and thus better understanding what the Biblical texts, written in Koine Greek, meant. (Roger did not go into all this in detail: I'm expanding on point that, as I understood it, he made.) He notes also that what is decisive in understanding how to translate the original text, the Greek -- and in this case primarily the phrase "οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ" ("ouk harpagmon ēgēsato to sinai isa Theōi") which the KJV translates: "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" and which modern translations often render "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped". Accurately translating the Greek is paramount, BroRog argues, and not who the translator was.

On all these points I concur.

Although there is certainly some committed and vigorous discussion of the authority of the KJV/AV and the history of translation that resulted in it, the essential point that Norman is getting at, as I understand it, is the importance of understanding the passage as clearly proclaiming that Christ Jesus is God. He says, in post #56,
The Deity of Christ goes beyond his manifestation. Jesus created all things. God spoke and it was that Word of God that created all things. Jesus is that Word. ... Jesus was not the servant of the Father, but rather the Son of the Father. Jesus took on the form of a bond-servant as an example of how we are to treat one another. Jesus took on the form of man so that he might be the sacrifice for us. ... Do you see God as singularly the Father? When you say God, are you thinking the Father? ... [T]he scripture that states [of Christ Jesus] that all things were created by Him, and for Him. ... Colossians 1:16 [states] "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" .... Jesus ... created all things, so I have a hard time relating that Jesus was not equal to God. When the word God is used, you should not perceive it as referring to just the Father, but rather the Trinity.

On these points I concur.

Later in the dialogue, BroRog argues that the King James itself need not be understood as presenting Christ as God: the emphasis, he argues, could be instead on the contrast between Christ having the appearance (form in this sense) of God and taking instead the appearance and role of a servant, which fits (as he rightly points out) the larger context of the passage in which Paul is exhorting his readers to be humble, as Jesus was humble. In this context I understood BroRog's main point to be not about this particular reading of the Philippians passage, but about the way that words and sentences can have differing meanings depending upon the context. But in a still later post BroRog seems to be saying -- but perhaps I misunderstand him -- that the passage itself, in Greek, does not necessarily (or perhaps, simply does not) proclaim the Deity of Christ. In so saying, I think, BroRog was not denying Christ's Deity, but only questioning whether this passage proclaimed that.

But in my view, the passage does clearly and forcefully proclaim the Deity of Christ. It also proclaims his humility, and his act of kenosis in becoming man. Further, in my opinion, these things are indisseverably linked in this passage, and closely related to one another. This is of utmost importance, I think. In a subsequent post I shall endeavor to show why this is so, and how, in my opinion, the Greek text supports it.

Scruffy Kid
Sep 10th 2012, 09:11 AM
Early on, in post 10, I provided, for reference, the Greek for the entire Christological Hymn (Phil. 2:5-11) and the KJV's translation, for a larger swath of the letter, 2:1-2:17. It's unmistakable that the Christological hymn occurs in the context of Paul giving directions to the Philippians about their conduct and attitude. He leads into the Christological hymn by saying that their attitude (mind), and that their mind as it governs their conduct also, should be that of Christ, whose approach the hymn then discusses. Paul says, in particular (in the KJV/AV)

Phl 2:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&t=KJV&x=11&y=7#)
If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,


Phl 2:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&t=KJV&x=11&y=7#)
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.


Phl 2:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&t=KJV&x=11&y=7#)
[Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.


Phl 2:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&t=KJV&x=11&y=7#)
Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.


Phl 2:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&t=KJV&x=11&y=7#)
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:


Phl 2:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&t=KJV&x=11&y=7#)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:


Phl 2:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&t=KJV&x=11&y=7#)
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Phl 2:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&t=KJV&x=11&y=7#)
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


The NASB renders the Greek:


Phl 2:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB#)
Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,


Phl 2:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB#)
make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.


Phl 2:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB#)
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;


Phl 2:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB#)
do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.


Phl 2:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB#)
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,


Phl 2:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB#)
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,


Phl 2:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB#)
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.


Phl 2:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB#)
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.



These are, in my opinion, essentially similar. Paul is exhorting the Philippians to humility, to lowliness, to unselfishness, to counting others as more important than themselves, and caring about others, as well as about themselves, and with all this to unity with one another, and with him; and the Christological Hymn makes that instruction grounded in what Christ has done. The hymn is followed by Paul's wonderful words -- placing God's work and ours together -- "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work, according to his good pleasure." This is certainly an exhortation for us to work hard at living as Christ wants us to, and likewise an assurance that God is at work within us to help us in this; and this sums up the passage both as moral exhortation to humility, and as a cosmological account of Christ's great work.

That Paul -- and that the Hymn itself, even if it existed as a separate piece of Christian workshop -- is exhorting us to humility, lowliness, trust in God, and service to others there can be, so far as I can see, no doubt.

But that the Hymn is doing that does not mean that it is not, also, and perhaps more importantly doing other things. It is, in fact, a statement of Christ's full Deity, His full humanity, His great and saving acts of kenosis, humbling, and suffering on our behalf, God's triumphant vindication of Him, and His highly-exalted status, which, the hymn tells us, comes to us through the mighty acts of self-humbling and suffering for us which He, Christ Jesus, undertook for us.

Although my general argument here is not dependent upon the point I shall now make about "the name which is above every name", I think it is helpful to consider this phrase. God, the Hymn tells us, has given Jesus "the name which is above every name." This is quite similar to the passage in Ephesians, where Paul says that Christ has been seated at the right hand of God "far above rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come"

Eph 1:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#)
do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers;


1:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#)
that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the [fn23] (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#fnt__23)knowledge of Him.


1:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#)
I pray that the eyes of your heart [fn24] (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#fnt__24)may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the [fn25] (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#fnt__25)saints,


1:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#)
and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe.These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might


1:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#)
which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,


1:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#)
far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.


1:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#)
And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,


1:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Eph&c=1&t=nasb#)
which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.



God, throughout the OT, is often referred to by His name: "the name of the Lord be praised". His name was revealed to Moses, at the burning bush; yet it was not an ordinary name, but "I am" or "I am that I am". However, the Jews, certainly by Jesus' time, held this name, the tetragramaton (four letters) YHVH or YHWH (Yod He Vav He) to be so sacred that it must not be spoken, or indeed written. In pointing the letters in the text they used the letters for Lord (Adonai) rather than the letters for YHVH to indicate that, even in reading the text in synagog, the name YHVH should not be pronounced, but rather the word Adonai (Lord) substituted for it. Thus the name of the Lord is itself Sacred in the highest extent.

Here, however, Jesus is given "the name which is above every name" (Phil 2) or seated "far above .. every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph. 1). I think that these texts mean exactly what they say. Christ Jesus is given the name that is "above every name" (the text does not say "the name that is above every other name" and seated far above "every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (and not far above "every other name"). Of course, Jesus' place is the highest place, and Jesus' name (with God's name YHWH) the highest name; that is being said, to be sure. But more than that is also being said. What is being said, also, is that the name of Jesus is above every name. This suggests a kind of paradoxical or self-contradictory statement: if Jesus' name is above every name, and if Jesus' name is a name, then Jesus' name is above itself -- which would be a kind of contradiction. Thus what is being said here is that the name of the Lord is, in a sense, something we may not pronounce -- as the Jews did not pronounce YHWH. Or, in other words, that the name, the being, the apprehension, the understanding of THE name, the name of God, the name of Jesus -- the name of Jesus is not like any name that we are used to. It is more than just the highest name: it is a name in which high and low cease to exist, because this name is beyond all that, even higher than all that.

This sense of higher than that which is highest is one which occurs again and again in Scripture. Thus in Psalm 113 the Psalmist writes



Psa 113:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
Praise ye the LORD. Praise, O ye servants of the LORD, praise the name of the LORD.


Psa 113:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
Blessed be the name of the LORD from this time forth and for evermore.


Psa 113:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the LORD'S name [is] to be praised.


Psa 113:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
The LORD [is] high above all nations, [and] his glory above the heavens.


Psa 113:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
Who [is] like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,


Psa 113:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
Who humbleth [himself] to behold [the things that are] in heaven, and in the earth!


Psa 113:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, [and] lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;


Psa 113:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
That he may set [him] with princes, [even] with the princes of his people.


Psa 113:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Psa&c=113&t=KJV&x=6&y=7#)
He maketh the barren woman to keep house, [and to be] a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the LORD.



It is the name of the Lord that is praised. God is said to be "above the nations" and His glory "above the heavens". But the heavens are the highest place. How could one go higher? "Heaven" is used -- as in Matthew's Gospel -- as a kind of synonym, a respectful circumlocution, for God: Mark's "the Kingdom of God" becomes Matt's "the Kingdom of Heaven". God "dwells in the heavens". But here God's glory is "above the nations" and God who is "on high" "humbles himself to behold the heavens and the earth". Even to look -- not just at earth, but at heaven -- is a step down for God.

But the Psalmist's chief point here, in the second half, is that God who is so very high DOES humble Himself, and humbles Himself to become involved with dust, and even dung, and with the nitty-gritty details of our lives. "He raises the poor from the dust, and the needy from the dunghill, to sit with princes, the princes of God's people"!! And similarly, "he makes the barren woman ... to be a joyful mother of children." God, who must stoop even to behold the heavens, therefore stoops all the way, to get beneath, to lift up, those scorned, those in trouble and sorrow, those sitting on the dungheap (that is, ****pile). Nothing is too low for God, because He is high far above all, high above the heavens, so high above the heavens that even to behold them is a (chosen) act of descent, of self-humbling, by God. God is very great, and his greatness, actually, is connected to His humility, his ability to stoop very low.

Thus God's name is not just the highest name, but a name higher than a name can be, the name that is above every name.


It may be helpful to return to the Christological Hymn with all this having been thought through.

Scruffy Kid
Sep 10th 2012, 09:29 AM
First, let's consider the right way to render the beginning of verse (2:6) "Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων". What the Greek says is not "although he was in very nature God" (or "in the form of God") but rather "being in very nature God" (or, "being in the form of God"). Some scholars have argued, indeed, that it would be correct to translate this "who, because He was in very nature (or in the form of) God did not consider it harpagmon to be equal with God." That is, the "although" suggests a contrast with what follows; the "because" suggests continuity with what follows. (The actual text simply says "being in morphe God".)


I cannot omit here a personal story. A friend of mine who was studying for a Ph.D. in New Testament (as I recall) took a class in Philippians from a scholar who was an expert on that book. (That scholar thought that "because" would be fitting!) As it turns out, my friend was best friends with the scholar's son, and was best man at his wedding. The groom's dad, the scholar, and my friend's teacher, was the celebrant, and preacher, at the wedding. He arrived not having shined his shoes, but with the materials to do so. As he sat (backstage) shining his shoes, the father of the groom, his teacher, the celebrant and preacher walked by, noticed that John was shining his shoes, and said "Oh, it will be much easier for you not to try to shine those shoes while you are wearing them. Let me shine them for you!" And he did. My friend, John, was overwhelmed that his teacher, amidst the responsibilities of being at his own son's wedding as the preacher and celebrant, should stoop to shine his shoes!

This was overwhelming to my friend not only for the beautiful act of love and humility that the scholar's act was, but also and the more for the way in which it embodied and illustrated the humility of Christ that the Philipians text -- which he had been studying under his teacher-- speaks of.

What does the passage say if we understand the passage as saying "Christ Jesus who, being was in very nature God (en morphe Theou), did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (heauton ekenosen) taking (labor) the very nature of a slave and, being found in human likeness and in his being like a human being, humbled himself to death, death even on a cross"?

I don't see the "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (if we do translate it that way) as any sort of weakening or negation of "was in very nature God" -- quite the reverse. He who was en morphe Theou -- in very nature God -- chose to empty himself of immortality (so that he might die for us), taking morphe doulou (the very nature of a slave), and His choosing to do so, being God, the ultimate act of humbleness, does not contradict his Deity, but rather shows it, not only because of His compassion and humility, directly, but because the act of so emptying himself is the full expression of His immutable God-ness (Godhead).

We, afraid and ungenerous so often in our hearts due to the Fall, do not like to let go of our powers or prerogatives, or positive status. This reflects not only selfishness on our part but insecurity. God, however, has none of those problems. Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God, has none of those problems. He who eternally dwells with the Father does not fear to take on the vulnerable and undistinguished status of a human being, born in obscurity in a stable, rejected by many, abandoned by his friends, scorned by the rulers of his people, judged a criminal, torturted and killed. Where we need to grasp at the status we have, need to cling to our strengths, He is not like that.

Because He is in very nature God, He had no need to cling to His equality with God, but was content, knowing His eternal fellowship with the Father and the Holy SPirit, and His unchangeable nature as God, to empty Himself of the powers of His Godhead, by being born an infant who had to learn to control his own body, and lean to speak a language he did not know. The author of Hebrews tells us that He was like us in all things (but not in sin). Christ, while remaining eternally Himself -- the Eternal God -- yet took, put on, human nature and was born, lived, and died as a man, even dying a death of shame and pain on the cross.

Charles Wesley, paraphrasing the Philippians passage, marvelously writes:

He left His Father's throne above,

So free, so infinite His grace

Emptied Himself of all but love

And bled for Adam's helpless race
It is not possible for God to empty Himself of his character, for God is love; but in order to die He did empty himself, as man, of immortality; in order to grow in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man (Luke 2:52) He did empty himself (as man) of knowledge and skill and strength.

Thus, I do not see the phrase "who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped (clung onto), but rather emptied himself" as denying or weakening at all the Hymn's confession of Christ Jesus as God, as one of the Holy Trinity. Rather, I see this as proclaiming most powerfully His full Deity precisely in telling us that he did not need or wish to cling to His invulnerable, immortal nature as God, but was willing to take a vulnerable, weak nature as a human being as well.

Because he was (in very nature) God, He could (so to speak) afford to descend to our level, to stoop to lift the poor from the dunghill, so that we might thereby be raised to sit with him on high (Eph. 2:6)

rejoice44
Sep 10th 2012, 01:10 PM
The discussion has become entangled with two matters which -- given the thread title, and even the OP -- seem to me to be side issues: The authority of the KJV (or AV), and related issues, and the fact that one of the early renderers of modern translations was a unitarian.

Although there is certainly some committed and vigorous discussion of the authority of the KJV/AV and the history of translation that resulted in it, the essential point that Norman is getting at, as I understand it, is the importance of understanding the passage as clearly proclaiming that Christ Jesus is God. He says, in post #56,

No I wouldn't call them side issues. The opening statement is, (Why did they change the scripture?) and basically applies to "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." My complaint is not that they removed all reference to the Deity of Christ, but rather that they muddied the water. When someone arbitrarily changes scripture, they should be thoroughly examined.

Sruffy Kid, while I can appreciate your wanting to place this thread above the fray, it gives us no answers to, "How did it happen?"

There are many apologists for the new translations, and one can readily understand this, what with so many churches using them, plus having the professors putting forth the idea that you are unlearned if you do not accept them. And then you have those that are in the field, either translating, producing, or promoting.

To me this verse has been so blatantly changed, and for a long time rejected, and now accepted after so much promotion.

Compare in the following where the "but" is placed, as observed by color coding.



Phl 2:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB)
Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,


Phl 2:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB)
make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.


Phl 2:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB)
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;


Phl 2:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB)
do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.


Phl 2:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB)
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,


Phl 2:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB)
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,


Phl 2:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB)
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.


Phl 2:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Phl&c=2&v=1&t=NASB)
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.











Versions after 1881


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit,



CONTRAST

but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

do not merely look out for your own personal interests,



CONTRAST


but also for the interests of others.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,



NO CONTRAST

but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant,


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice in verse seven, that while the “but” is there, there is no contrast between being not equal to God, and being a bond-servant. But in all earlier translations there is a contrast, as shown in the following translation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Versions before 1881


judged it not robbery to be equal with God:




CONTRAST

but lowered himself, taking the form of a servant.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the above you can see the contrast, from being equal to God, to being a lowly servant. Therefore the “but” is justified.

markedward
Sep 10th 2012, 02:53 PM
I always thought evidence decreases with time. I realize there is always exceptions to any rule, as in the case of DNA evidence, but what evidence do we have that proves the meaning of this word that occurs only one time in the Bible. Its root word means to steal.
Paul used the word αρπαγμον, and its root word is the verb αρπαζω, which means 'to seize' or 'to take' (not 'to steal'). This root verb is used several times in the NT, usually with a meaning of 'to take by force' (mostly in the Gospel books), but it is also used with the neutral/positive meaning in other NT books (Acts 8.39; Second Corinthians 12.2; 1 Thessalonians 4.17; Jude 23; Revelation 12.5). The point is, Paul is explaining that Jesus 'though in the form of God' was a man, and did not attempt to usurp authority from God, but rather humbled himself before God.

rejoice44
Sep 10th 2012, 05:46 PM
Paul used the word αρπαγμον, and its root word is the verb αρπαζω, which means 'to seize' or 'to take' (not 'to steal'). This root verb is used several times in the NT, usually with a meaning of 'to take by force' (mostly in the Gospel books), but it is also used with the neutral/positive meaning in other NT books (Acts 8.39; Second Corinthians 12.2; 1 Thessalonians 4.17; Jude 23; Revelation 12.5).

Of the thirteen times αρπαζω is used, all involve force, and seven of those thirteen times it is unwelcomed force. Taking something by unwelcomed force can equate to robbery, or stealing. If a wolf steals a sheep away, isn’t that robbery? (John 10:12)


The point is, Paul is explaining that Jesus 'though in the form of God' was a man, and did not attempt to usurp authority from God, but rather humbled himself before God.

You have just left out the Greek word ἴσος. “Usurp authority” is in no way a replacement for equal. You are changing the words, and thus changing the meaning. This is the problem that translators have when they go about altering the Bible; once they change one word they have to change another, and another.

You have to assume that for 500 years all the translators of the English Bible were wrong, until the Unitarian came along. When you consider that the fellow translators with the Unitarian believed we came from monkeys; then you have to ask yourself, how smart were they?

markedward
Sep 10th 2012, 07:07 PM
Of the thirteen times αρπαζω is used, all involve force, and seven of those thirteen times it is unwelcomed force. Taking something by unwelcomed force can equate to robbery, or stealing. If a wolf steals a sheep away, isn’t that robbery? (John 10:12)
I provided five examples where αρπαζω is used where it is not 'robbery' or 'stealing'. The basic definition is 'to take' or 'carry' or 'seize'. Neither theft nor the use of force are intrinsic to the word. You can't selectively read which passages you want to create a definition that suits you.


You have just left out the Greek word ἴσος.
I haven't. Please see post 21 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/241633-Philippians-2-6-7-Why?p=2890807#post2890807). It's right there in the second clause: 'ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω'. I was paraphrasing the first clause, not the second clause.


“Usurp authority” is in no way a replacement for equal.
I didn't say it was. I was explaining the full thought behind Paul's statement, I wasn't explaining the individual clauses.


You are changing the words, and thus changing the meaning.
I haven't changed any words. Please don't mistake my simple paraphrase ('though in the form of God') of the first clause (ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων, 'who existing in the form of God') for changing the meaning of the entire sentence.


This is the problem that translators have when they go about altering the Bible;
The translators have not altered the Bible, they simply disagreed that the traditional English translation up to that point was accurate. The only problem here is a mistaken devotion to the KJV, which is not inspired.


You have to assume that for 500 years all the translators of the English Bible were wrong, until the Unitarian came along. When you consider that the fellow translators with the Unitarian believed we came from monkeys; then you have to ask yourself, how smart were they?
Personal attacks on the translators has nothing to do with the validity of their translation. When you have to rely on ad hominems, it only makes your own case look worse. If you could provide a genuine, substantial reason for why the newer translations are wrong, we could have a real discussion. But right now, you're case boils down to (a) it doesn't agree with the KJV, (b) older translations are inherently more accurate, and (c) personal attacks on the translators

ETHOS
Sep 10th 2012, 07:41 PM
I disagree with you that Jesus gave up all his heavenly glory. When the Word was clothed with humanity, the Word still had power. Jesus is the arm of God, at least figuratively, and as such we must relate Jesus and the Father, as our own bodies are to us.

Does your arm decide what to do, or do you decide, and then your arm does it. Is your body equal to you? We are made in God's image, and we have a body, soul, and spirit. Can you separate your body from your soul and spirit? Is your body less equal to you? Does your body obey your commands? I believe we have to think outside of the box. Our ways and thoughts are not God's ways and thoughts.

Jesus is a "mediator." or a go-between, a go-between cannot be God, as he pleads for humans before God on thier behalf, and the scripture also call Jesus "a man." The scriptures also state Jesus dies, whereas God cannot die:-


Habakkuk 1:12
Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. . . .

Philippians 2:8
"More than that, when he [Jesus] found himself in fashion as A MAN, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.

1 Timothy 2:5, 6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, A MAN, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times.

ethos

rejoice44
Sep 10th 2012, 08:16 PM
I provided five examples where αρπαζω is used where it is not 'robbery' or 'stealing'. The basic definition is 'to take' or 'carry' or 'seize'. Neither theft nor the use of force are intrinsic to the word. You can't selectively read which passages you want to create a definition that suits you.

You have presented five examples where it is not robbery, but that still leaves seven examples where it can be considered theft. When you take something by force that belongs to someone else that is stealing.


I haven't. Please see post 21 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/241633-Philippians-2-6-7-Why?p=2890807#post2890807). It's right there in the second clause: 'ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω'. I was paraphrasing the first clause, not the second clause.

You left it out of your paraphrase. When you paraphrase something you have to leave a word of equal value for those you have omitted, otherwise it is not an honest paraphrase.



I didn't say it was. I was explaining the full thought behind Paul's statement, I wasn't explaining the individual clauses.

How can it be the full thought if it omits words?



I haven't changed any words. Please don't mistake my simple paraphrase ('though in the form of God') of the first clause (ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων, 'who existing in the form of God') for changing the meaning of the entire sentence.

I wasn't referring to that clause. You replaced "equal" with "usurp authority" in your paraphrase in the second clause of verse six.


The translators have not altered the Bible, they simply disagreed that the traditional English translation up to that point was accurate. The only problem here is a mistaken devotion to the KJV, which is not inspired.

Please don't say that they haven't altered the Bible. Every accepted English bible that the Church possessed for 500 years had a form of "judged it not robbery to be equal with God", within verse six of Philippians two. You could look at the text, and even if it was in Old English you would know it was saying "thought it not robbery, to be equal with God".

I don't know why you have all that antagonism toward the "Authorized Version". It stood alone as the accepted bible for more than three hundred years without contention, and was used by all the great men of faith in the past. It isn't the "Authorized Version that set this verse in English, but rather all those in between, starting with John Wiclif's bible and going through the Bishop's bible. The "Authorized Version" only agreed with those going before it.


Personal attacks on the translators has nothing to do with the validity of their translation. When you have to rely on ad hominems, it only makes your own case look worse. If you could provide a genuine, substantial reason for why the newer translations are wrong, we could have a real discussion. But right now, you're case boils down to (a) it doesn't agree with the KJV, (b) older translations are inherently more accurate, and (c) personal attacks on the translators.

You have to get real. It is alright for anybody to rewrite the bible? Motives and rationality are immaterial? Why not make Mickey Mouse President? Whoops, maybe we have.

rejoice44
Sep 10th 2012, 08:25 PM
Jesus is a "mediator." or a go-between, a go-between cannot be God, as he pleads for humans before God on thier behalf, and the scripture also call Jesus "a man." The scriptures also state Jesus dies, whereas God cannot die:-


Habakkuk 1:12
Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. . . .

Philippians 2:8
"More than that, when he [Jesus] found himself in fashion as A MAN, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.

1 Timothy 2:5, 6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, A MAN, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times.

ethos

While I could debate this with you, I believe only Unitarians, seven day adventists, and the such do not believe in the Deity of Christ, and didn't know we had such on the forum.

markedward
Sep 10th 2012, 08:33 PM
You have presented five examples where it is not robbery, but that still leaves seven examples where it can be considered theft. When you take something by force that belongs to someone else that is stealing.
The point was simply that 'theft' is not intrinsic to the word. You had said the word's definition was 'to steal', which is not the case. The definition is 'to take' or 'to seize' or even 'to carry'... theft must be inferred by the context; it is no intrinsic to the word. This is all beside the point, however.


How can it be the full thought if it omits words?
Because otherwise I would simply have been quoting. Why can't you understand that I was at one point paraphrasing, and at the other point explaining by summary?


I wasn't referring to that clause.
I was.


You replaced "equal" with "usurp authority" in your paraphrase in the second clause of verse six.
'Usurp authority' was not my paraphrase, it was my summary explanation of the entire first half of Paul's statement regarding Jesus' self-humbling and subsequent exaltation.


Please don't say that they haven't altered the Bible. Every accepted English bible that the Church possessed for 500 years had a form of "judged it not robbery to be equal with God", within verse six of Philippians two. You could look at the text, and even if it was in Old English you would know it was saying "thought it not robbery, to be equal with God".
I will again say: the newer translations have not altered the Bible. They do not word-for-word agree with the KJV and other older English versions, but that does not inherently mean the newer translations are wrong. All you have achieved is repeating, in one form or another, 'the KJV is right' or 'older is better'. You haven't given a reason to trust either of these statements.


I don't know why you have all that antagonism toward the "Authorized Version".
You're misreading my intent. I don't have any antagonism toward the KJV. Like others here have, I simply point out that it is not inspired, and hence, it is not the standard for a proper translation. We know without any doubt what the original Greek text of Philippians 2.6-7 said, so that is our standard. If the newer translations accurately reflect Paul's thought found in Philippians 2.6-7, then it simply does not matter what the KJV says, because it is not the standard we're comparing to. Your entire OP is based on the issue of translation, but you're basing it on the wrong foundation.


It stood alone as the accepted bible for more than three hundred years without contention, and was used by all the great men of faith in the past.
This is irrelevant to the issue of determining whether today's translations accurately reflect the original Greek text. You have not provided a single reason for why the older translation was the most accurate, let alone that the newer translations are inaccurate ('they don't use the same words as older translations' is not a valid reason, and ad hominems against the translators is not a valid reason).


It is alright for anybody to rewrite the bible?
They haven't rewritten the Bible. In any case, this discussion is futile.

ETHOS
Sep 10th 2012, 08:38 PM
While I could debate this with you, I believe only Unitarians, seven day adventists, and the such do not believe in the Deity of Christ, and didn't know we had such on the forum.

If this is what the scriptures say how can you debate it?

RogerW
Sep 10th 2012, 08:42 PM
Though it appears this is yet one more attempt to elevate one translation above another, that is NOT the intended purpose, at least as far as I can tell. My contributions to this thread are not from my devotion to the King James Bible. Yet, I will admit it is my preferred translation. My concern, like I believe is the concern of rejoice44, is "why" are some of these changes to the Bible made? My gripe isn't that I love the KJ, and it alone is God's inspired Word, so don't make changes...no, no, no! My REAL gripe is why the plethora of new modern translations that keep coming, and coming and coming. And make no mistake about it, there is very good cause to examine not only the translation, but also those translating. EVERYONE, in every translation has brought their particular bias into the translation. Sometimes, as I believe rejoice44 has pointed out that is NOT a good thing! It doesn't really matter whether we agree or not, Ph 2:6-7 was changed from "Thus sayeth God" to "Thus sayeth what I believe God is saying." This is true, and abundantly clear by all the differences we find in many translations in just this one passage. And this is only one change of hundreds, maybe even thousands of changes...and all calling themselves the Bible, and claiming this is what God really said. We've come back to the beginning of redemptive history. Back to the time in the garden when the serpent deceived Eve, asking her "hath God said"? Once he planted the seed of doubt it was real easy for him to convince her that God would not do what He promised, so Eve believed the devil rather than God when he said, "Ye shall not surely die". Either we believe we have God's Word, or we too, like Eve begin to ask, "Is that really what God was saying"?

BroRog
Sep 10th 2012, 09:02 PM
It doesn't really matter whether we agree or not, Ph 2:6-7 was changed from "Thus sayeth God" to "Thus sayeth what I believe God is saying." This is true, and abundantly clear by all the differences we find in many translations in just this one passageI do not agree that the so-called Authorized version is "Thus sayeth God". The ASV is just as much "Thus sayeth what I believe God is saying." as any other translation. If you were taught that the ASV or the KJV or any other translation of the Bible was "Thus sayeth God", you were misinformed and your teacher did you a grave disservice.

rejoice44
Sep 10th 2012, 09:08 PM
Though it appears this is yet one more attempt to elevate one translation above another, that is NOT the intended purpose, at least as far as I can tell. My contributions to this thread are not from my devotion to the King James Bible. Yet, I will admit it is my preferred translation. My concern, like I believe is the concern of rejoice44, is "why" are some of these changes to the Bible made? My gripe isn't that I love the KJ, and it alone is God's inspired Word, so don't make changes...no, no, no! My REAL gripe is why the plethora of new modern translations that keep coming, and coming and coming. And make no mistake about it, there is very good cause to examine not only the translation, but also those translating. EVERYONE, in every translation has brought their particular bias into the translation. Sometimes, as I believe rejoice44 has pointed out that is NOT a good thing! It doesn't really matter whether we agree or not, Ph 2:6-7 was changed from "Thus sayeth God" to "Thus sayeth what I believe God is saying." This is true, and abundantly clear by all the differences we find in many translations in just this one passage. And this is only one change of hundreds, maybe even thousands of changes...and all calling themselves the Bible, and claiming this is what God really said. We've come back to the beginning of redemptive history. Back to the time in the garden when the serpent deceived Eve, asking her "hath God said"? Once he planted the seed of doubt it was real easy for him to convince her that God would not do what He promised, so Eve believed the devil rather than God when he said, "Ye shall not surely die". Either we believe we have God's Word, or we too, like Eve begin to ask, "Is that really what God was saying"?

RogerW we are in harmony of thought, only you express yourself far more eloquent than I do.

markedward
Sep 10th 2012, 09:38 PM
It doesn't really matter whether we agree or not, Ph 2:6-7 was changed from "Thus sayeth God" to "Thus sayeth what I believe God is saying."
How is the KJV not the latter? It is a translation. Translation, by definition, requires interpretation on the part of the translator. No matter how one tries to spin it, the KJV (nor Wycliffe, nor Tyndale, nor whatever other older English versions there are), because of the simple fact that it is not the original Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek, is an interpretation. So why do those older interpretations-into-English trump newer interpretations-into-English. Why does 'older' equal 'God said this', but newer equals 'I think God said that'?


My gripe isn't that I love the KJ, and it alone is God's inspired Word, so don't make changes...no, no, no! My REAL gripe is why the plethora of new modern translations that keep coming, and coming and coming.
Forgive me for turning this around... but how can you make an argument like this against newer English translations, and then defend the KJV in particular? And I'm not even referring to the most recent version of the KJV (as opposed to the very original 1611 version). If your complaint is that multiple translations of the Bible into English is inherently bad (and that seems to be the gist of your post)... why aren't you using the very first full translation of the Bible into English (Wycliffe's Bible)? Because if your complaint is applied consistently, then the KJV should be included as one of the 'plethora of new modern translations that keep coming'.

I agree with you on this: a lot of the new translations we have are unnecessary and only result in confusion. Specifically, 'Bibles' that freely paraphrase or change the text. I'm not talking about just the Message or the Voice or whatever. I'm including some of the looser 'dynamic equivalent' versions like the NLT (where it freely adds in words that are entirely absent from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek; e.g. the word 'Jerusalem' is added into Revelation 11.8 when the Greek text does not mention the city by name). But outside of those ones that do freely alter the text, other ones like the NIV, or the ESV, etc., have just as much of a right to exist as the Wycliffe or the KJV.

It does not matter if this or that English Bible is the first or the tenth or the hundredth translation. What matters is whether the translation accurately reflects the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English, and that someone can actually understand what is being said. If people can't understand the Wycliffe or the KJV, then there should be no problem with them using a newer translation. Or five.

RogerW
Sep 10th 2012, 09:56 PM
I do not agree that the so-called Authorized version is "Thus sayeth God". The ASV is just as much "Thus sayeth what I believe God is saying." as any other translation. If you were taught that the ASV or the KJV or any other translation of the Bible was "Thus sayeth God", you were misinformed and your teacher did you a grave disservice.

That may well be true....BUT, it, like every translation prior to Westcott, Hort have withstood the test of time. They/it have longevity, and have served the prupose for which God intended - bringing His people into the kingdom. We can argue till the cows come home over archaic language, outdated, ease of reading, etc, etc, etc but that merely detracts from the FACT that multitudes have been saved using what we already have...God's providentially preserved Word. It wasn't broken, but man in his providence determined he could improve on what God said! Can modern versions, and even modern perversions bring God's people into His Kingdom? Of course they can! But again that detracts from the real issue. Because all these modern translations have caused man to doubt that we even have a true Word from God!

markedward
Sep 10th 2012, 10:16 PM
but that merely detracts from the FACT that multitudes have been saved using what we already have...God's providentially preserved Word.
So... when the English language has evolved since then, and people can't understand the KJV when they read it... there should not be anything wrong with someone using a newer version they can actually comprehend, so long as the translation accurately reflects the original languages into the translated language.


Because all these modern translations have caused man to doubt that we even have a true Word from God!
Rather than simply asserting this, please provide real, tangible evidence that this is the case. Based on my own experience via discussions with people who once identified as Christians and now no longer do, or reading their books, or blogs, or articles, or whatever... the issue of 'too many modern translations!' has come up zero times. It has always been a matter of science versus faith, or outdated Biblical ethics, or textual criticism of the original Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, and so on. There are countless reasons people have doubted 'that we even have a true word from God', but I have never found anyone who used the reason of 'there are too many English translations'.

RogerW
Sep 10th 2012, 10:20 PM
How is the KJV not the latter? It is a translation. Translation, by definition, requires interpretation on the part of the translator. No matter how one tries to spin it, the KJV (nor Wycliffe, nor Tyndale, nor whatever other older English versions there are), because of the simple fact that it is not the original Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek, is an interpretation. So why do those older interpretations-into-English trump newer interpretations-into-English. Why does 'older' equal 'God said this', but newer equals 'I think God said that'?

I understand what you mean, but you cannot deny the older English versions, having withstood the test of time have accomplished what God intended. Many people have come into His glorious Kingdom using them. IOW there was no deficiency in the older versions. So what is the purpose behind modern versions? Because for a fact they have not succeeded at what they said they desired, a better translation.


Forgive me for turning this around... but how can you make an argument like this against newer English translations, and then defend the KJV in particular? And I'm not even referring to the most recent version of the KJV (as opposed to the very original 1611 version). If your complaint is that multiple translations of the Bible into English is inherently bad (and that seems to be the gist of your post)... why aren't you using the very first full translation of the Bible into English (Wycliffe's Bible)? Because if your complaint is applied consistently, then the KJV should be included as one of the 'plethora of new modern translations that keep coming'.

I do happen to love the KJV, but this too is a distraction from the argument. The argument as far as I'm concerned is why does man feel the need to try to fix what is not broken? Because in their attempt to improve what we already have, they have succeeded in causing many to doubt that any translation is God's Word. If that doesn't play perfectly into the hands of Satan, I don't know what would.


I agree with you on this: a lot of the new translations we have are unnecessary and only result in confusion. Specifically, 'Bibles' that freely paraphrase or change the text. I'm not talking about just the Message or the Voice or whatever. I'm including some of the looser 'dynamic equivalent' versions like the NLT (where it freely adds in words that are entirely absent from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek; e.g. the word 'Jerusalem' is added into Revelation 11.8 when the Greek text does not mention the city by name). But outside of those ones that do freely alter the text, other ones like the NIV, or the ESV, etc., have just as much of a right to exist as the Wycliffe or the KJV.

Once that door was opened what could you think would happen. I'm really not painting with an overly wide brush here. I don't doubt that noble men of God truly desired to give us God's Word with greater clarity in some modern translations. But once man began to think he could fix what needed no fixing, it was just a matter of time before all manner of men saw the $$$ to be made, and Bible translations became a lucrative enterprise. And I'm sure you would agree that is what we have today. So again with all the modern versions man has succeeded in making many doubt the Word of God has been and is being providentially preserved for all time.


It does not matter if this or that English Bible is the first or the tenth or the hundredth translation. What matters is whether the translation accurately reflects the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English, and that someone can actually understand what is being said. If people can't understand the Wycliffe or the KJV, then there should be no problem with them using a newer translation. Or five.

You'll be surprised, but I agree with you. Of course we want to have the Word of God in our language. But lets face facts, modern versions have gone way beyond wanting what's best for building the Kingdom of God, and are often in the Bible translation business for what's in it ($$$) for themselves. I've no doubt the gates of hell will not prevail, and God's kingdom will be complete, but how many will be seduced into believing the lie "hath God (really) said"?

Saved7
Sep 10th 2012, 11:08 PM
Jesus was not equal to God as he said "the father is greater than I am."-John 14:8

For God's Son Jesus to come to earth he had to give up all his heavenly glory as "The Word" and come to earth as a human being.

ethos

You are incorrect. Jesus the SON said His FATHER is greater than Him, but that did not mean that He is not God. For God was manifested in the flesh...of Jesus Christ. Even the jews understood that calling God His father made himself EQUAL with God.
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

markedward
Sep 10th 2012, 11:11 PM
I understand what you mean, but you cannot deny the older English versions, having withstood the test of time have accomplished what God intended.
Yes, amen. I fully agree with you. Let us praise God for the Wycliffe and KJV and Lindisfarne and the rest.


Because for a fact they have not succeeded at what they said they desired, a better translation.
This is a rather subjective point to be made, which can not really be tackled in a thread like this. We would need full books documenting errors between this or that translation (KJV, NIV, ESV, etc.). Suffice it to say, I can understand what I'm reading in newer translations, and there are indeed places where the KJV translators intentionally skewed parts of the Biblical texts when it suited their theological presuppositions. I'm not saying the KJV can't still be used as a good Bible, because it gets the most important things right, but at the same time I do not see it as honest to defend it over newer translations, simply because it has been around for a long time. It has its fair share of errors and mistakes, so I could just as easily say that newer English versions did succeed at what they said they desired, a better translation.


The argument as far as I'm concerned is why does man feel the need to try to fix what is not broken?
Neverminding that the KJV does contain several translation errors and mistakes (some of which were intentional on the part of the translators/English interpreters), I again point out: if the English language has evolved so much to the point that people today cannot comprehend what they are reading in the KJV, it is time to move on. A wheel made of wood may not be broken, but that does not mean we can't make other wheels that function just as well, if not better.


Because in their attempt to improve what we already have, they have succeeded in causing many to doubt that any translation is God's Word. If that doesn't play perfectly into the hands of Satan, I don't know what would.
Please see the final paragraph of my previous post.

BroRog
Sep 10th 2012, 11:43 PM
That may well be true....BUT, it, like every translation prior to Westcott, Hort have withstood the test of time. They/it have longevity, and have served the prupose for which God intended - bringing His people into the kingdom. We can argue till the cows come home over archaic language, outdated, ease of reading, etc, etc, etc but that merely detracts from the FACT that multitudes have been saved using what we already have...God's providentially preserved Word. It wasn't broken, but man in his providence determined he could improve on what God said! Can modern versions, and even modern perversions bring God's people into His Kingdom? Of course they can! But again that detracts from the real issue. Because all these modern translations have caused man to doubt that we even have a true Word from God!Well, you know what I am going to say because it all comes down to a single question. Does the translation, whether it was translated in 17th century or the 21st century, convey the author's objective, intended meaning? That's all we need to ask.

The KJV does NOT do that. Maybe it did long, long ago. But it no longer does. Not because the Bible has changed but because English has changed. I do not agree that every translation prior to Westcott and Hort have withstood the test of time. English speakers of the 21st century do not speak 17th century English and so the KJV is worthless for study and doctrine. If you don't like what I'm saying it's too bad; but it's true. Take your KJV, put it in a nice glass box, set on the shelf in a place of honor, but please don't use it for study or doctrine. It's done. It's had it's time and now it's time to move on.

rejoice44
Sep 11th 2012, 12:39 AM
Well, you know what I am going to say because it all comes down to a single question. Does the translation, whether it was translated in 17th century or the 21st century, convey the author's objective, intended meaning? That's all we need to ask.

The KJV does NOT do that. Maybe it did long, long ago. But it no longer does. Not because the Bible has changed but because English has changed. I do not agree that every translation prior to Westcott and Hort have withstood the test of time. English speakers of the 21st century do not speak 17th century English and so the KJV is worthless for study and doctrine. If you don't like what I'm saying it's too bad; but it's true. Take your KJV, put it in a nice glass box, set on the shelf in a place of honor, but please don't use it for study or doctrine. It's done. It's had it's time and now it's time to move on.


The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version





by J. C. Philpot




(Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)


We take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late--whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:


1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)--in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.


2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!

3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.

4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16,and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance." Once set up a notice, "THE OLD BIBLE TO BE MENDED," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice,"

and "reprobate" into "undiscerning."All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.

5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!


6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.


(Taken from pages 103-105, Sin & Salvation, Selections from J. C. Philpot)

This man spoke with wisdom and foresight.

The bible was never intended to be an easy read, otherwise one could read it as a light novel. It takes more than a few days to absorb this book, and perhaps more than many lifetimes. The bible tells us to be seekers. Anyone that wants to absorb the whole bible in a week is not a seeker. Perhaps the bible was meant to weed out those that have little interest in knowing God. There isn't any word in the "Authorized Version" that can't be determined with a little effort, and there are darn few of such words contained within it. I do not champion the "Authorized Version" over any translations that came before it because they are all so similar. This cannot be said for those that followed.

The "Authorized Version" was authorized by a king in the manner of God's authority, and was accepted by the people, even up to this day. This cannot be said for the one that followed. The work of the translation was authorized, but the finished product was so radical that it was rejected by the House of Commons, and then by the people. Seventy years after it was produced, it was still rejected. But attempt after attempt, and revision after revision, and promotion after promotion has succeeded in bringing it into our lives.

I doubt if very few young people really realize what took place.

RogerW
Sep 11th 2012, 01:12 AM
The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version





by J. C. Philpot




(Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)


We take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late--whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:


1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)--in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.


2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!

3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.

4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16,and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance." Once set up a notice, "THE OLD BIBLE TO BE MENDED," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice,"

and "reprobate" into "undiscerning."All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.

5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!


6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.


(Taken from pages 103-105, Sin & Salvation, Selections from J. C. Philpot)

This man spoke with wisdom and foresight.

The bible was never intended to be an easy read, otherwise one could read it as a light novel. It takes more than a few days to absorb this book, and perhaps more than many lifetimes. The bible tells us to be seekers. Anyone that wants to absorb the whole bible in a week is not a seeker. Perhaps the bible was meant to weed out those that have little interest in knowing God. There isn't any word in the "Authorized Version" that can't be determined with a little effort, and there are darn few of such words contained within it. I do not champion the "Authorized Version" over any translations that came before it because they are all so similar. This cannot be said for those that followed.

The "Authorized Version" was authorized by a king in the manner of God's authority, and was accepted by the people, even up to this day. This cannot be said for the one that followed. The work of the translation was authorized, but the finished product was so radical that it was rejected by the House of Commons, and then by the people. Seventy years after it was produced, it was still rejected. But attempt after attempt, and revision after revision, and promotion after promotion has succeeded in bringing it into our lives.

I doubt if very few young people really realize what took place.

AMEN and AMEN!!!

RogerW
Sep 11th 2012, 01:35 AM
Well, you know what I am going to say because it all comes down to a single question. Does the translation, whether it was translated in 17th century or the 21st century, convey the author's objective, intended meaning? That's all we need to ask.

The KJV does NOT do that. Maybe it did long, long ago. But it no longer does. Not because the Bible has changed but because English has changed. I do not agree that every translation prior to Westcott and Hort have withstood the test of time. English speakers of the 21st century do not speak 17th century English and so the KJV is worthless for study and doctrine. If you don't like what I'm saying it's too bad; but it's true. Take your KJV, put it in a nice glass box, set on the shelf in a place of honor, but please don't use it for study or doctrine. It's done. It's had it's time and now it's time to move on.

Ga*4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

So the woman said, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

Scruffy Kid
Sep 11th 2012, 05:09 AM
I think that something needs to be learned from the way this thread has developed.

In Phil. 2:5-11 (and surrounding verses as well) we have one of the most inspiring, and powerful, passages of Scripture: one which outlines, in profound depth, the fundamental drama of our salvation: That the true and eternal God -- in the person of Jesus Christ -- acting from His very nature, elected not to remain invulnerable, but to take on human nature with all its weakness and susceptibility to suffering and death, in order to save us. Through His humility, His cross, His resurrection we are saved, and Jesus is given the name that is above all names. In Him we also are able to partake of the life of God, and humble ourselves to serve others. Through all this, God the Father is glorified.

The OP verses 2:6-7, in and of themselves, are powerful, life-changing!

But instead of digging into these life-giving verses, somehow these become simply a means by which to attack translations other than the KJV.

My point here is not to object to the debate over the KJV: if anyone wants to engage in that, it's fine, although it should be properly titled, and not cast as an inquiry into Phil. 2, when the whole aim, really, is a KJV-is-best debate.

The point is that this debate has obscured the chance which we had to try to learn from the Bible, from Phil 2:6-7 or its surrounding context, with help from one another, and thus to strengthen ourselves and one another in drinking of this life-giving passage of Scripture.

To turn from the vital and life-creating words of Scripture to a debate about translations, and then ultimately ignore the passage that was asked about altogether, is sad.

We need to be seeking the face of the Lord, in transformative, profound passages of Scripture like this, and in all the Scriptures. Not quibbling. IMO.

Raybob
Sep 11th 2012, 08:06 AM
Jesus is a "mediator." or a go-between, a go-between cannot be God, as he pleads for humans before God on thier behalf, and the scripture also call Jesus "a man." The scriptures also state Jesus dies, whereas God cannot die:-...

His body died but Jesus (God), lives on forever.

Joh 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

How can you read this not know that Jesus IS/WAS God?

ETHOS
Sep 11th 2012, 08:14 AM
His body died but Jesus (God), lives on forever.

Joh 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

How can you read this not know that Jesus IS/WAS God?

That is only one version; many do not say "God":-
The following is a list of varianttranslations of John 1:1:

Interlineary Word for Word EnglishTranslation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Wordwas with the God, and a god was the Word."

Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The NewTestament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes inEnglish, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who havebest illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of theprincipal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemedCommentators and critics. London,1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divineperson"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was agod"

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testamentin an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selonJean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; orThe Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published bythe translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

Goodspeed's An American Translation,1939, "the Word was divine

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected,"the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "andgod[-ly/-like] was the Word."

The Four Gospels—A New Translation, byProfessor Charles Cutler Torrey, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god

New English Bible, 1961, "what Godwas,the Word was"

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "theLogos was divine"

International English Bible-Extreme NewTestament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is abetter translation, because the Greek definite article is not present beforethis Greek word]
Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The NewTestament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "andthe Word was a god"

Simple English Bible, "and theMessage was Deity"

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translationof the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greekand English, 1822, "The Word was a God" Robert Young, LL.D. (ConciseCommentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) wasthe Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology,Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And thelogos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel ofHistory, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur dieNewtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Messagewas deity.”

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St.James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] DivinePerson."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of CertainPassages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God,Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonementfor Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37)."a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism inthe Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement ofReasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown,Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary ofModern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings ofChristianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning ofCreation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced allthings in their order."

21st Century NT Free "and the[Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

George William Horner, The Coptic Versionof the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature ofthe New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd theWord was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament ofour Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974,"The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor,1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nachJohannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word waswith God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinctionin the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, thearticle is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instancethere is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is notsignificant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use ofTheos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."

William Barclay's The New Testament,1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nachJohannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

Schonfield's The Original New Testament,1985, "the Word was divine

Revised English Bible, 1989, "whatGod was, the Word was

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993,"The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering ,1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nachJohannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907,"The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Bohmer, 1910, "It was stronglylinked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme,1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (ofKind/kind) was the Logos/logos"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war derGedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938,"itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NTtheology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament,1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/beinghad the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the worldwas a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlikeBeing/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind)was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology ofthe Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982,"He was with God and in all like God"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984,"divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god(or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in WilliamLoader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

William Temple, Archbishop of York,Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And theWord was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "TheWord of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar,incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut,May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NTLanguage and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word wasDivine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of NewTestament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in TheHistoric Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divinebeing)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote inhis Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . .'the word was a divine being.'

Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962(original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God.It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with Godbefore creation]."

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- TheGospel of John vol.1 “III. [RevisedEdition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that “The Word was God”. There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it isdifficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When the Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is ‘theos’,and the definite article is ‘ho’. When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; itdescribes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that theWord was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article-which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character andquality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is soperfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like”

Raybob
Sep 11th 2012, 09:10 AM
That is only one version; many do not say "God":-...

But the original Greek text says, "theos" which can only mean GOD. Are you saying you don't believe Jesus is God?

rejoice44
Sep 11th 2012, 12:58 PM
I think that something needs to be learned from the way this thread has developed.

To turn from the vital and life-creating words of Scripture to a debate about translations, and then ultimately ignore the passage that was asked about altogether, is sad.

We need to be seeking the face of the Lord, in transformative, profound passages of Scripture like this, and in all the Scriptures. Not quibbling. IMO.

I don't think you have been listening.

The point of this thread was that our bible is being changed on a daily basis. Paul said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Have you really listened to what many of the posters have said? They have said we don't have the word of God. That we can only hope that some day we might find the originals in a trash bin some where.

Seventy years ago there was no quibbling over what was the word of God, for there was only one bible in use, but now we have so many we can't count them.

Philippians 2:6 has changed from,--

"Who, being in the form of God; thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

to--

"He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what."

When they say we don't have the inspired word of God, it gives them the authority to change the word without remorse.

They have so nibbled at the word of God that it no longer becomes recognizable as the Word of God.

The discord that you object to is a direct result of the work that started in 1881. You should be angry with the cause and not the dissenters. Even Jesus overthrew the tables.

BrianW
Sep 11th 2012, 02:12 PM
It is not that simple

Mod Note: It is that simple. This is a protestant message board in which we believe in the Trinity and so the deity of Christ. If you are denying the deity of Christ the forum for you is the Areopagus forum located here:

http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php/46-Areopagus

Please acquaint yourself with all the rules of our board and post things in the appropriate forums. This is not up for debate in this thread or in Bible Chat.

BrianW

BroRog
Sep 11th 2012, 08:41 PM
The point of this thread was that our bible is being changed on a daily basis.Do you think the Spanish Translation is also the Bible? What about the Russian translation or the French translation? Or do you think that God favors the Anglo Saxon race?

Please. There is only one Bible, the word of God written in Greek and Hebrew, the original languages. The Bible hasn't changed on a daily basis. Only the translations of the Bible have changed. And if each of us would learn and study in Greek and Hebrew, this wouldn't even be an issue. If you want to read the Bible, learn Greek and Hebrew. Or stick with your KJV and be happy. Listen to Mr. Scruffy. We shouldn't miss the message Paul was attempting to tell us.

rejoice44
Sep 11th 2012, 11:10 PM
Do you think the Spanish Translation is also the Bible? What about the Russian translation or the French translation? Or do you think that God favors the Anglo Saxon race?

Please. There is only one Bible, the word of God written in Greek and Hebrew, the original languages. The Bible hasn't changed on a daily basis. Only the translations of the Bible have changed. And if each of us would learn and study in Greek and Hebrew, this wouldn't even be an issue. If you want to read the Bible, learn Greek and Hebrew. Or stick with your KJV and be happy. Listen to Mr. Scruffy. We shouldn't miss the message Paul was attempting to tell us.

The Vatican said we had to learn Latin. But then they turned around and said we were not smart enough to interpret it. And now you are saying we have to learn Greek and Hebrew; but would you also turn around and say we were not smart enough to interpret it?

Since you never commented on Philpot, perhaps you missed it, so here it goes again.



The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version





by J. C. Philpot




(Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)


We take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late--whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:


1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)--in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.


2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!

3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.

4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16,and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance." Once set up a notice, "THE OLD BIBLE TO BE MENDED," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice," and "reprobate" into "undiscerning."All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.

5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!


6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.


(Taken from pages 103-105, Sin & Salvation, Selections from J. C. Philpot)

BroRog
Sep 11th 2012, 11:52 PM
The Vatican said we had to learn Latin. But then they turned around and said we were not smart enough to interpret it. And now you are saying we have to learn Greek and Hebrew; but would you also turn around and say we were not smart enough to interpret it?

Since you never commented on Philpot, perhaps you missed it, so here it goes again.I didn't miss it. I had nothing to say about it. But since you asked again, I think his comments reflect very well the common misunderstanding about the Bible and what kind of book it is. His comments reflect the naive belief that 1)the masses are too stupid to think for themselves and need to have an "authority" tell them what to believe, 2) that we dare not "unsettle" the minds of the ignorant folk by teaching them how to read for themselves, 3) that the sole reason for disputes among believers is the fact that they don't have a common translation over which to argue 4) that a particular English translation of the Bible is THE Bible and that all other translations are suspect or even forgeries, 5) that the motives of those who translate the Bible are suspect and that their sole purpose in making a new translation is deception or obfuscation 6) that the "good old Saxon Bible" is more solid than any other good translation, 7) that what was good enough for thousands of saints living in the 17th century is good enough for the saints living in the 21st century.

Remember Strong's concordance? If the KJV was so easy to understand, why did Strong's include an exhaustive lexicon at the end of the commentary? Not only did Strong's help the saints find passages of scripture and bring favorite passages to mind, it also offered the Bible student a bit of help doing word studies, which is part of the interpretation process. Strong's index to the KJV became the back bone of additional books and ultimately Bible software that opened up new avenues and possibilities for the Bible student. People aren't as dumb as Philpot imagined. Not only are their modern translations, but the fact that some translations have different wording has become the reason why folks like me have invested so much time and energy in Bible study, using the modern tools of Bible study.

I don't think we have to worry about the modern translations anymore. Many of us who do not know how to read Hebrew or Greek have found a way to get access to the original intended meaning through the many Bible study aids available on software or the internet. We don't need to worry that an uneducated, unintelligent church will simply swallow a new translation hook, line, and sinker. Modern believers have access to all the Bible study tools anyone could possibly need, including software that makes it possible to compare various translations and the Greek text side-by-side, with hot buttons index to Strong's concordance and many other lexicons and commentaries. With all this help, I'm not worried about a few more translations.

markedward
Sep 12th 2012, 12:17 AM
The Vatican said we had to learn Latin.
And now you're saying we have to use the KJV. How are you not employing a double standard here?

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 12:37 AM
I didn't miss it. I had nothing to say about it. But since you asked again, I think his comments reflect very well the common misunderstanding about the Bible and what kind of book it is. His comments reflect the naive belief that 1)the masses are too stupid to think for themselves and need to have an "authority" tell them what to believe, 2) that we dare not "unsettle" the minds of the ignorant folk by teaching them how to read for themselves, 3) that the sole reason for disputes among believers is the fact that they don't have a common translation over which to argue 4) that a particular English translation of the Bible is THE Bible and that all other translations are suspect or even forgeries, 5) that the motives of those who translate the Bible are suspect and that their sole purpose in making a new translation is deception or obfuscation 6) that the "good old Saxon Bible" is more solid than any other good translation, 7) that what was good enough for thousands of saints living in the 17th century is good enough for the saints living in the 21st century.

Remember Strong's concordance? If the KJV was so easy to understand, why did Strong's include an exhaustive lexicon at the end of the commentary? Not only did Strong's help the saints find passages of scripture and bring favorite passages to mind, it also offered the Bible student a bit of help doing word studies, which is part of the interpretation process. Strong's index to the KJV became the back bone of additional books and ultimately Bible software that opened up new avenues and possibilities for the Bible student. People aren't as dumb as Philpot imagined. Not only are their modern translations, but the fact that some translations have different wording has become the reason why folks like me have invested so much time and energy in Bible study, using the modern tools of Bible study.

I don't think we have to worry about the modern translations anymore. Many of us who do not know how to read Hebrew or Greek have found a way to get access to the original intended meaning through the many Bible study aids available on software or the internet. We don't need to worry that an uneducated, unintelligent church will simply swallow a new translation hook, line, and sinker. Modern believers have access to all the Bible study tools anyone could possibly need, including software that makes it possible to compare various translations and the Greek text side-by-side, with hot buttons index to Strong's concordance and many other lexicons and commentaries. With all this help, I'm not worried about a few more translations.

Do you have the inspired word of God?

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 12:46 AM
And now you're saying we have to use the KJV. How are you not employing a double standard here?

I am saying the Vatican didn't want anyone reading the Bible. The reformation came along and gave the English speaking people a bible they could read and understand, and that was the story for five hundred years. Along came some people who didn't like that bible. Basically it was the Vatican, and those that didn't believe in the Deity of Christ who deemed it vile. Now, five hundred years after having the English bible stand as the standard for the Word of God, we have more varieties saying many various things, and leaving people asking; exactly which bible is correct? I call that confusion, and entirely unnecessary.

markedward
Sep 12th 2012, 01:36 AM
I am saying the Vatican didn't want anyone reading the Bible. The reformation came along and gave the English speaking people a bible they could read and understand, and that was the story for five hundred years.
So, according to your telling of history: the Vatican didn't want anyone reading it outside of the 'authorized version', written in a language barely anyone could understand. Yet, here you are claiming that the KJV is the definitive 'authorized version', written in a language barely anyone can understand. You're doing the exactly what you're criticizing others for having done.

Aside from this, you're understanding of history has several things very badly mixed up:

First, you said 'The Vatican said we had to learn Latin', followed by 'the Vatican didn't want anyone reading the Bible'. These are both untrue. Parts of the Bible were being translated into English centuries before the Reformation, and had nothing to do with objections to the RCC. In fact, many of the first English translations of portions of the Bible were carried out by the Roman Catholic Church.

Second, you said 'The reformation came along and gave the English speaking people a bible they could read and understand'. Aside from the above fact (that the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for the first English translations of the Bible centuries before the Reformation), the first full English translation of the Bible came by John Wycliffe (who was critical of the RCC) and associates in 1384, over a hundred years before the Protestant Reformation actually began. The Wycliffe translation was ridden with translation errors (and wasn't even based on the Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek texts), which is why the RCC was critical of it. (The RCC did make false accusations and lies against Wycliffe in order to remove the Bible, but their criticism of his poor translation is justified.)

Third, your whole statement presents the idea that the KJV was the definitive English Bible (since it is the KJV you are specifically defending), made in response to the RCC's attempt to hide the Bible behind Latin. This is absolutely false. When the KJV was made, it was nearly a hundred years after the Protestant Reformation had begun, and had nothing to do with the Vatican forcing people to read the Bible in Latin. The KJV was created because previous English versions, 'authorized' by the Church of England, had inaccuracies receiving criticism from Puritans.* And even aside from that... the Roman Catholic Church had begun translating the Bible into English in 1582 (the Douay-Rheims Bible), more than twenty years before the translation process for the KJV had begun.

Fourth, you say 'that was the story for five hundred years'. I'm not at all sure how you came to this time frame, because nothing in history resembles it. The first English translations came out before 1000 AD, under the guide of the RCC. The Wycliffe translation came out in 1384. The Douay-Rheims translation originated in 1582. Several other English translations came out in the intermediate time frame, until the KJV finally came out in 1611. The KJV had a major revision in 1769 (not even 200 years after it was first created). Nine other English translations came out between 1752 and 1890... so the KJV was not even around for 150 years by the time the next English translation was made, and less than 300 years had passed by the time all nine of these other English versions came to be. So 'that was the story for five hundred years' simply is not a true statement.



* Take a good lesson from this: older 'authorized' English versions had errors, and so people wanted a new translation to correct them. So now a fact: the KJV has translation errors and mistakes. Why, then, was it righteous for people to come along and create a new translation (the KJV) for the sake of a more accurate English version when errors in previous versions were made known... but now it is somehow inherently wrong for people to come along and create (a) new translation(s) for the sake of a more accurate English version when errors in the KJV have been made known? This is just another of many double standards you're relying on.

James414
Sep 12th 2012, 02:54 AM
Mod Note: It is that simple. This is a protestant message board in which we believe in the Trinity and so the deity of Christ. If you are denying the deity of Christ the forum for you is the Areopagus forum located here:

http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php/46-Areopagus

Please acquaint yourself with all the rules of our board and post things in the appropriate forums. This is not up for debate in this thread or in Bible Chat.

BrianW

Would it be ok to properly define the original meaning of "person" in the Queen's language as taken from the Latin word..."persona"? It will not be denying the Deity of Christ in the least.
We need to discover how God BECAME man and HOW He manifested Himself a such. It would be a crying shame if this is to be thrust into a closet. It will be of vital importance to let God speak in the matter.

Dani H
Sep 12th 2012, 03:08 AM
Despite all the talk of 'seizing' and 'emptying' and such, Paul believed that Jesus is Yahweh in the form of a man, and that true worship of Yahweh must be focused on the person of Jesus.

And everyone said: Amen.

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 03:20 AM
So, according to your telling of history: the Vatican didn't want anyone reading it outside of the 'authorized version', written in a language barely anyone could understand. Yet, here you are claiming that the KJV is the definitive 'authorized version', written in a language barely anyone can understand. You're doing the exactly what you're criticizing others for having done.

I never said the Vatican didn't want anyone reading the bible outside of the "Authorized Version".


Aside from this, you're understanding of history has several things very badly mixed up:

First, you said 'The Vatican said we had to learn Latin', followed by 'the Vatican didn't want anyone reading the Bible'. These are both untrue. Parts of the Bible were being translated into English centuries before the Reformation, and had nothing to do with objections to the RCC. In fact, many of the first English translations of portions of the Bible were carried out by the Roman Catholic Church.

Please read this letter written by Cardinal Allen at Douay College in 1578. It was written Latin and translated into English by T. F. Knox and presented in the "Letters and Memorials of William Cardinal Allen" pp. 52-67.

"On every Sunday and festival English sermons are preached by the more advanced students on the gospel, epistle or subject proper to the day. . . We preach in English, in order to acquire greater power and grace in the use of the vulgar tongue. . . In this respect the heretics, however ignorant they may be in other points, have the advantage over many of the more learned Catholics, who having been educated in the universities and the schools do not commonly have at command the text of Scripture or quote it except in Latin. Hence when they are preaching to the unlearned and are obliged on the spur of the moment to translate some passage which they have quoted into the vulgar tongue, they often do it inaccurately and with unpleasant hesitation, because either there is no English version of the words or it does not then and there occur to them. Our adversaries on the other hand have at their fingers' ends all those passages of Scripture which seem to make for them, and be a certain deceptive adaptation and alteration of the sacred words produce the effect of appearing to say nothing but what comes from the bible. This evil might be remedied if we to had some catholic version of the bible, for all the English versions are most corrupt. I do not know what kind you have in Belgium. But certainly we on our part, if his Holiness shall think proper, will undertake to produce a faithful, pure and genuine version of the bible in accordance with the edition approved by the Church, for we already have men most fitted for the work."

The Douay-Rheims Bible came on the scene in 1582 but it wasn't readily distributed to the common man. It was for the priest to use. Your statement that the Catholic church had the English translation of the bible wasn't true in 1578.

I can attest to the fact that catholics in the 1950's were told not to read the bible, but rather to ask the priest. The Latin Version was the only approved version from Jerome in 405 until 1582 when the first English version of the New Testament was approved. It was another 28 years before the Old Testament was completed. If you have proof that the Vatican approved distributing the bible in English to the common man please present it.


Second, you said 'The reformation came along and gave the English speaking people a bible they could read and understand'. Aside from the above fact (that the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for the first English translations of the Bible centuries before the Reformation), the first full English translation of the Bible came by John Wycliffe (who was critical of the RCC) and associates in 1384, over a hundred years before the Protestant Reformation actually began. The Wycliffe translation was ridden with translation errors (and wasn't even based on the Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek texts), which is why the RCC was critical of it. (The RCC did make false accusations and lies against Wycliffe in order to remove the Bible, but their criticism of his poor translation is justified.)

Many would argue with you that the reformation started in the fifteenth Century. It is a fact it started before the Council of Trent 1545. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits (Jesus Society.) which had as their core commitment to get rid of the Protestant movement was there before the Council of Trent. The Jesuit Society was founded in 1540.


Third, your whole statement presents the idea that the KJV was the definitive English Bible (since it is the KJV you are specifically defending), made in response to the RCC's attempt to hide the Bible behind Latin. This is absolutely false. When the KJV was made, it was nearly a hundred years after the Protestant Reformation had begun, and had nothing to do with the Vatican forcing people to read the Bible in Latin. The KJV was created because previous English versions, 'authorized' by the Church of England, had inaccuracies receiving criticism from Puritans.* And even aside from that... the Roman Catholic Church had begun translating the Bible into English in 1582 (the Douay-Rheims Bible), more than twenty years before the translation process for the KJV had begun.

(You need to do some homework.) Sorry for this statement and I retract it.


Fourth, you say 'that was the story for five hundred years'. I'm not at all sure how you came to this time frame, because nothing in history resembles it. The first English translations came out before 1000 AD, under the guide of the RCC. The Wycliffe translation came out in 1384. The Douay-Rheims translation originated in 1582. Several other English translations came out in the intermediate time frame, until the KJV finally came out in 1611. The KJV had a major revision in 1769 (not even 200 years after it was first created). Nine other English translations came out between 1752 and 1890... so the KJV was not even around for 150 years by the time the next English translation was made, and less than 300 years had passed by the time all nine of these other English versions came to be. So 'that was the story for five hundred years' simply is not a true statement.

Can you name the translations and give accounting of how many of them were distributed to the people?




* Take a good lesson from this: older 'authorized' English versions had errors, and so people wanted a new translation to correct them. So now a fact: the KJV has translation errors and mistakes. Why, then, was it righteous for people to come along and create a new translation (the KJV) for the sake of a more accurate English version when errors in previous versions were made known... but now it is somehow inherently wrong for people to come along and create (a) new translation(s) for the sake of a more accurate English version when errors in the KJV have been made known? This is just another of many double standards you're relying on.

Perhaps you can explain the meaning of the following.

Please examine this verse portion from Philippians 2:6.

but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.


What force would Jesus have used to remain equal with God?



Please examine this verse portion from Philippians 2:6.

counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,

Does this mean it wasn’t worth anything to be equal with God?

You do not need to try and explain what this means in the Greek, this isn’t Greek!

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 03:27 AM
Would it be ok to properly define the original meaning of "person" in the Queen's language as taken from the Latin word..."persona"? It will not be denying the Deity of Christ in the least.
We need to discover how God BECAME man and HOW He manifested Himself a such. It would be a crying shame if this is to be thrust into a closet. It will be of vital importance to let God speak in the matter.

I would think a discussion on the Deity of Christ would be better served elsewhere.

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 04:05 AM
Third, your whole statement presents the idea that the KJV was the definitive English Bible (since it is the KJV you are specifically defending), made in response to the RCC's attempt to hide the Bible behind Latin. This is absolutely false. When the KJV was made, it was nearly a hundred years after the Protestant Reformation had begun, and had nothing to do with the Vatican forcing people to read the Bible in Latin. The KJV was created because previous English versions, 'authorized' by the Church of England, had inaccuracies receiving criticism from Puritans.* And even aside from that... the Roman Catholic Church had begun translating the Bible into English in 1582 (the Douay-Rheims Bible), more than twenty years before the translation process for the KJV had begun.

The 500 years is from Wiclif to the ERV. I am not specifically defending the KJV, my complaint is against the drastic change in the wording after 1881. It is true that some of the translations had minor errors and therefore the reason for the "Authorized Version". That you would imply that the Douay-Rheims was distributed to the common man is simply not true. The Douay-Rheims was written as a weapon against the protestant bible, and was specifically for use by the priests. The Vatican didn't really want anybody reading the bible in any language. The power of the Vatican was always in the priesthood. It was the priesthood that the common man was to go to for understanding.

RogerW
Sep 12th 2012, 04:48 AM
The 500 years is from Wiclif to the ERV. I am not specifically defending the KJV, my complaint is against the drastic change in the wording after 1881. It is true that some of the translations had minor errors and therefore the reason for the "Authorized Version". That you would imply that the Douay-Rheims was distributed to the common man is simply not true. The Douay-Rheims was written as a weapon against the protestant bible, and was specifically for use by the priests. The Vatican didn't really want anybody reading the bible in any language. The power of the Vatican was always in the priesthood. It was the priesthood that the common man was to go to for understanding.

Hmmm, 1881...what is the significance of that year in regards to biblical manuscripts? Here is a snippet from Dr D.A. Waite as he shares the findings of his reseach regarding significant changes that became part of new testament manuscripts beginning in 1881.

"Scrivener set down all of the Greek words used by the KJV, but he did something else as well. He put in bold face type all of the alterations made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881 English Revised Version. He inserted the exact alterations in the footnotes. These consisted of either additions of Greek words, subtractions of Greek words, or changes of Greek words in some other way. This Greek text edition has been reprinted by the Bible for Today. It is a very useful tool. Scrivener's Greek text is also available on the LOGOS Computer Program which enables the student to study more carefully. Dr. Jack Moorman counted 140,521 Greek words in the Textus Receptus. Scrivener's Greek edition has 647 pages which would average 217 Greek words per page. That's what the Textus Receptus has."

"The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort that underlies the Modern Versions. Though there were some scattered opposition to the Received Text in years before, the concerted effort against the Received Text came in 1881, and after. In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the Anglican Church, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the TR in 5,604 places by my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the TR. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek N.T., or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the TR Greek N.T. It was a radically new Greek text. Westcott and Hort concocted a new Greek text and changed the TR that had been used in the Church from the beginning of the writing of the N.T."

markedward
Sep 12th 2012, 04:56 AM
Friend, I'm tired of getting caught up in all the historical details, so I'm just going to cut right back to my original question:

You claimed (at one point) that the RCC required everyone to use a single 'authorized version' of the Bible (the Vulgate), written in a language barely anyone could understand. You (and others) are now claiming that everyone must used a single 'authorized version' of the Bible (the KJV), written in a language most people today cannot understand. How is that not a double standard? It's the exact same thing: you are claiming that anyone not reading this particular version is not reading the real Bible. If you can't see that you are using a double standard here, there's just no point in continuing this discussion any more. It's just going around and around.

And if you are not making the claim that the KJV is the only real Bible... then just leave people alone, and let them read whichever version they want (the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, the ESV, the YLT, etc.), with the sole stipulation being that it should be an accurate translation and understandable to the person reading it. And if you can't live with that, there's still no point in continuing this discussion, because no one is changing their mind. People can't be convinced to love the KJV if they can't comprehend what they're reading in it, or if they know beyond any doubt that it has translation errors and mistakes.

Grace and peace to you (and I really mean that). See you in other threads.

James414
Sep 12th 2012, 11:18 AM
I would think a discussion on the Deity of Christ would be better served elsewhere.

You did not read what I said, did you? It is not about the Deity of Christ. We all know and understand He was and is God.

Ok. Will discuss elsewhere.

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 12:09 PM
Friend, I'm tired of getting caught up in all the historical details, so I'm just going to cut right back to my original question:

You claimed (at one point) that the RCC required everyone to use a single 'authorized version' of the Bible (the Vulgate), written in a language barely anyone could understand. You (and others) are now claiming that everyone must used a single 'authorized version' of the Bible (the KJV), written in a language most people today cannot understand. How is that not a double standard? It's the exact same thing: you are claiming that anyone not reading this particular version is not reading the real Bible. If you can't see that you are using a double standard here, there's just no point in continuing this discussion any more. It's just going around and around.

If I said that, I surely didn't mean to say that. The RCC didn't want anyone reading the bible except their priests.


And if you are not making the claim that the KJV is the only real Bible... then just leave people alone, and let them read whichever version they want (the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, the ESV, the YLT, etc.), with the sole stipulation being that it should be an accurate translation and understandable to the person reading it. And if you can't live with that, there's still no point in continuing this discussion, because no one is changing their mind. People can't be convinced to love the KJV if they can't comprehend what they're reading in it, or if they know beyond any doubt that it has translation errors and mistakes.

People can read whatever they like. Our church receives a lot of guests, and if they have their bible with them, they often have trouble following the scripture reading, since so many different bibles read so differently. It adds unnecessary confusion. For example---

but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.

counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,

thought it not robbery to be equal with God,

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 12:18 PM
You did not read what I said, did you? It is not about the Deity of Christ. We all know and understand He was and is God.

Ok. Will discuss elsewhere.

My apologies James4:14 for cutting you short. Your reply sounded like it was heading in another direction.

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 12:44 PM
Hmmm, 1881...what is the significance of that year in regards to biblical manuscripts? Here is a snippet from Dr D.A. Waite as he shares the findings of his reseach regarding significant changes that became part of new testament manuscripts beginning in 1881.

"Scrivener set down all of the Greek words used by the KJV, but he did something else as well. He put in bold face type all of the alterations made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881 English Revised Version. He inserted the exact alterations in the footnotes. These consisted of either additions of Greek words, subtractions of Greek words, or changes of Greek words in some other way. This Greek text edition has been reprinted by the Bible for Today. It is a very useful tool. Scrivener's Greek text is also available on the LOGOS Computer Program which enables the student to study more carefully. Dr. Jack Moorman counted 140,521 Greek words in the Textus Receptus. Scrivener's Greek edition has 647 pages which would average 217 Greek words per page. That's what the Textus Receptus has."

"The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort that underlies the Modern Versions. Though there were some scattered opposition to the Received Text in years before, the concerted effort against the Received Text came in 1881, and after. In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the Anglican Church, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the TR in 5,604 places by my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the TR. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek N.T., or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the TR Greek N.T. It was a radically new Greek text. Westcott and Hort concocted a new Greek text and changed the TR that had been used in the Church from the beginning of the writing of the N.T."

Yes they were busy beavers, Hort being the main drive. They were the main supporters to bring the Vatican back into power in England, while studying at Cambridge.

Where they didn't actually change the Greek, they merely changed the reading of it. Yet they were not the first to change this reading found in Philippians 2:6.

A professor at Cambridge, who in 1745, translated the New Testament from three different Alexandrian manuscripts, also changed the reading of Philippians 2:6 to "Who being in the form of a God, did not take upon him to be equal to a God:" His name was William Whiston, and he lost his job at Cambridge for heresy. William Whiston did not believe in the Deity of Christ. There were very few who saw his translation, as it only had a minor distribution.

BrianW
Sep 12th 2012, 12:56 PM
You did not read what I said, did you? It is not about the Deity of Christ. We all know and understand He was and is God.

Ok. Will discuss elsewhere.

That sort of discussion is perfectly fine here. What isn't allowed in Bible Chat is the denial of the deity of Christ.

rejoice44
Sep 12th 2012, 05:47 PM
I didn't miss it. I had nothing to say about it. But since you asked again, I think his comments reflect very well the common misunderstanding about the Bible and what kind of book it is. His comments reflect the naive belief that 1)the masses are too stupid to think for themselves and need to have an "authority" tell them what to believe, 2) that we dare not "unsettle" the minds of the ignorant folk by teaching them how to read for themselves, 3) that the sole reason for disputes among believers is the fact that they don't have a common translation over which to argue 4) that a particular English translation of the Bible is THE Bible and that all other translations are suspect or even forgeries, 5) that the motives of those who translate the Bible are suspect and that their sole purpose in making a new translation is deception or obfuscation 6) that the "good old Saxon Bible" is more solid than any other good translation, 7) that what was good enough for thousands of saints living in the 17th century is good enough for the saints living in the 21st century.

Consider each of the man’s points.

1. “Who was to undertake the revision”. Philpot said it would be Catholics, and unbelievers in the Deity of Christ.

That actually proved to be true. Hort was an anti-Protestant and a pro-Catholic, and he fought to put a Unitarian on the committee. Hort also believed that God’s account in Genesis was not true, for he believed in evolution.

2. It would shake the minds of thousands of saints who memorized scripture, and held the words of God to be precious, that they would now be told they were in error.

That was true, and is true. If one has memorized scripture from one translation, and then moves to an area where the only fundamental church in town is using another translation, it then becomes confusing. That wouldn’t have happened in Philpot’s time. Another thing is that the word loses its preciousness when doubt arises as to what is the word.



3. “There would now be two bibles.” Philpot could never have said this if it was not true.

As much as some would like to deny it, there was only one translation accepted by the English speaking people in the years leading up to the attempted revision, and it was the “Authorized Version”.

4. “Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend.”

It sure is easier to break something than to fix it.

“The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16,and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation.”
This is exactly what Hort accomplished. According to his letters he planned this.

“The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance."

This didn’t happen, but so far Philpot’s score is exceptional.

Once set up a notice, "THE OLD BIBLE TO BE MENDED," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces.

Wow! Isn’t this so true?


“The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice," and "reprobate" into "undiscerning."All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.”

The NIV in a number of places has changed “righteousness” to “justice”.

Hort’s edition changed “reprobate” to “disqualified”, “failed the test”, and “etc”.

Philpot was right, that we would end up with a bible that no one would consider the Word of God. I hear one after another say we don’t have the Word of God, because we don’t have the originals. That what we do have is not the inspired Word of God.

5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!

6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.

Philpot demonstrates that there was a single voice of authority without contention as to what was the Word of God. We no longer have that, and that is sad.


Remember Strong's concordance? If the KJV was so easy to understand, why did Strong's include an exhaustive lexicon at the end of the commentary? Not only did Strong's help the saints find passages of scripture and bring favorite passages to mind, it also offered the Bible student a bit of help doing word studies, which is part of the interpretation process. Strong's index to the KJV became the back bone of additional books and ultimately Bible software that opened up new avenues and possibilities for the Bible student. People aren't as dumb as Philpot imagined. Not only are their modern translations, but the fact that some translations have different wording has become the reason why folks like me have invested so much time and energy in Bible study, using the modern tools of Bible study.

I don't think we have to worry about the modern translations anymore. Many of us who do not know how to read Hebrew or Greek have found a way to get access to the original intended meaning through the many Bible study aids available on software or the internet. We don't need to worry that an uneducated, unintelligent church will simply swallow a new translation hook, line, and sinker. Modern believers have access to all the Bible study tools anyone could possibly need, including software that makes it possible to compare various translations and the Greek text side-by-side, with hot buttons index to Strong's concordance and many other lexicons and commentaries. With all this help, I'm not worried about a few more translations.

Yes they have all of that, they just don’t have faith that they possess the inspired Word of God.