- This topic has 3,161 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Official Biblical Test, “Textus Receptus”-“MasoreticText”-“AKJV Bible” (Link)
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,07:40) Well which bible do you follow?
Hi 2Besee,I have provided you with a thread I started
on Official Biblical Test. (see above)
Here is the opening post:Hi Everyone,
This is an important topic for everyone's biblical studies.
We as English-Speaking people share a common language.
It is, however, sometimes necessary to get others to define
their usage of certain words to have a cohesive conversation. …without misconceptions – that is.Misconceptions (in beliefs) – are the cause of error in most cases.
If we believe YHVH has had his word preserved – as most here do.The next logical question is as follows…
“in what form was his word preserved”?I suggest that “ALL” of you:
focus on the “Textus Receptus” – as the “Official Greek Text”!
and likewise, the “Masoretic Text” as the “Official Hebrew Text”!
…and furthermore – The “AKJV Bible” as the “Official English Text”!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Ed.
One verse that stands out as clearly being manipulated to take the trinitarian (or binitarian or arian) position is Philipians 2:6. Look at this:
New International Version (©1984)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,New Living Translation (©2007)
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.English Standard Version (©2001)
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,New American Standard Bible (©1995)
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.International Standard Version (©2012)
In God's own form existed he, and shared with God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
He who, while he was in the form of God, did not esteem this as a prize, that he was the equal of God,GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God:American King James Version
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:American Standard Version
who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,Douay-Rheims Bible
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Darby Bible Translation
who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;English Revised Version
who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,Webster's Bible Translation
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Weymouth New Testament
Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.World English Bible
who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,Wow.
As you can see in the above, even your AKJV takes the trinitarian/binitarian/Arian flavor. Where my RSV has:
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Now taken in context my RSV also has this:
[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,HAVE THIS MIND IN YOU ALSO.
So the other translations are telling us (according to their translation) to think it not robbery to be equal to God!? (wrong! compare that idea to other verses in the bible)The literal translation from Greek according to biblos.com is this:
who
in
[the] form – 3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence.
of God
subsisting,
not
something to be grasped
esteemed it
to
to be
equal
with God;http://biblos.com/philippians/2-6.htm
Hmm.
This one is the “Authorized King James Version”:
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) (they have is mislabeled)
Phil 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
26 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:The “AKJV Bible” correct, because here is what the Greek says:
2:5 τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου
2:6 ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω(Phil 2:5-6) 2:5 This understanding is in you in Christ Jesus:
2:6 In the form that God exists, think it not robbery to be considered equal.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,11:34) This one is the “Authorized King James Version”: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) (they have is mislabeled)
Phil 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
26 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:The “AKJV Bible” correct, because here is what the Greek says:
2:5 τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου
2:6 ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω(Phil 2:5-6) 2:5 This understanding is in you in Christ Jesus:
2:6 In the form that God exists, think it not robbery to be considered equal.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Wow no Ed that is so wrong.Here are the ones who correctly “copied” the AKJV Bible
Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,Webster's Bible Translation
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Douay-Rheims Bible
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:American King James Version
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:The rest got is wrong!
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,09:39) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,11:34) This one is the “Authorized King James Version”: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) (they have is mislabeled)
Phil 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
26 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:The “AKJV Bible” correct, because here is what the Greek says:
2:5 τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου
2:6 ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω(Phil 2:5-6) 2:5 This understanding is in you in Christ Jesus:
2:6 In the form that God exists, think it not robbery to be considered equal.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Wow no Ed that is so wrong.
Why?Quote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,04:22) Hi Ed. One verse that stands out as clearly being manipulated to take the trinitarian (or binitarian or arian) position is Philipians 2:6. Look at this:
New International Version (©1984)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,New Living Translation (©2007)
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.English Standard Version (©2001)
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,New American Standard Bible (©1995)
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.International Standard Version (©2012)
In God's own form existed he, and shared with God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
He who, while he was in the form of God, did not esteem this as a prize, that he was the equal of God,GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God:American King James Version
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:American Standard Version
who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,Douay-Rheims Bible
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Darby Bible Translation
who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;English Revised Version
who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,Webster's Bible Translation
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Weymouth New Testament
Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.World English Bible
who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,Wow.
As you can see in the above, even your AKJV takes the trinitarian/binitarian/Arian flavor. Where my RSV has:
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Now taken in context my RSV also has this:
[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,HAVE THIS MIND IN YOU ALSO.
So the other translations are telling us (according to their translation) to think it not robbery to be equal to God!? (wrong! compare that idea to other verses in the bible)The literal translation from Greek according to biblos.com is this:
who
in
[the] form – 3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence.
of God
subsisting,
not
something to be grasped
esteemed it
to
to be
equal
with God;http://biblos.com/philippians/2-6.htm
Hmm.
2beese,I do not see the difference you see except in the case of modern translations that keep the older grammar form that is not used today. Even then it is just obsolete and therefore confusing to those who lack knowledge.
Here is what Google says: (Link)
2:5 for this is the froneistho in you in Christ Jesus
2:6 th in the form of God CuX arpagmon igisato considered the equalQuote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,09:42) 'Think it not wrong that we are equal to God'!!?? I think I will definitely stick to my RSV thanks!
That's not what it says?
Why are you changing the meaning?Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,04:40) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,09:39) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,11:34) This one is the “Authorized King James Version”: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) (they have is mislabeled)
Phil 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
26 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:The “AKJV Bible” correct, because here is what the Greek says:
2:5 τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου
2:6 ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω(Phil 2:5-6) 2:5 This understanding is in you in Christ Jesus:
2:6 In the form that God exists, think it not robbery to be considered equal.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Wow no Ed that is so wrong.
Why?
Ed J.It is an obsolete usage of robbery that is now equated with “theft” instead of “something to be grasped”
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,11:44) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,09:42) 'Think it not wrong that we are equal to God'!!?? I think I will definitely stick to my RSV thanks!
That's not what it says?
Why are you changing the meaning?
Hi Ed,Quote you:
Quote Here are the ones who correctly “copied” the AKJV Bible Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,Webster's Bible Translation
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Douay-Rheims Bible
Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:American King James Version
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:The rest got is wrong!
And, in context…….'Have the same mind in you as was in Christ Jesus – who thought it not robbery to be equal to God'… is what it is saying, or at least how I understand those translations to mean.
Hi Kerwin and 2besee,
Do either of you believe that you take away from God? (please both do answer)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,09:48)
And, in context…….'Have the same mind in you as was in Christ Jesus – who thought it not robbery to be equal to God'…
is what it is saying, or at least how I understand those translations to mean.
See my last post, the meaning is posed as a question.Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,11:49) Hi Kerwin and 2besee, Do either of you believe that you take away from God? (please both do answer)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,The man of sin puts himself in the temple of God (our body is the temple of God) making himself out to be God.
Perhaps there is a link to that somewhere?
Just saying. (thinking).Quote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,09:53) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,11:49) Hi Kerwin and 2besee, Do either of you believe that you take away from God? (please both do answer)
God bless
Ed J
Ed,The man of sin puts himself in the temple of God (our body is the temple of God) making himself out to be God.
Perhaps there is a link to that somewhere?
Just saying. (thinking).
Hi 2Besee,Why are you changing the meaning of Philip.2:6?
That's not what it says, AND YOU KNOW IT.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,11:55) Do you both NOW understand, why
the “AKJV Bible” is correct and
the others are wrong, now?
Definitely not.
I will stick to my RSV which God gave me kindly through a nice old man and has inscribed in pen on the inside 'Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Amen'.I can't believe Ed that you cannot see the difference in the meaning behind the different translations and the HUGE difference that makes to the understander?
Never mind.
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 14 2013,04:44) All,
how do we be humble WHEN we Believe that we are equal to GOD!? I see now where the problem is.
2beesee,I forgot about the NLT which is a thought for thought translation by those who are not carried along by the Spirit. I find the word for word translations better but even they are subject to translation bias.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
