There are hundreds of altered passages, words and phrases that do not give the same meaning as the Traditional Text. A good example is "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (
Phl 2:6).
Its language states that Christ did not consider it stealing from God when He considered being equal with Him.
All the modern translations have "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
Here, its saying that Jesus did not want to use the advantage of being equal with God, when there is no reason to think this is what it means. It's actually the opposite of one another. One says He considered being equal with God; and the other, that He did not desire using the advantage of being equal with God.
I get this may be another ignorant thing I say. But I don’t see those two translations opposite of one another but instead the way we view and most often enforce His being equal to God is what is opposite.
I can’t prove it but to me His thinking it not as robbery to be equal to God. Means when He said “not my will, but Your Will be done Father.” “It is not robbery”. How He counted to be made like unto one among you as One who serves as not robbery of his image but glorifying His Heavenly, the image of God who is humble and patient, and easily intreated, first pure and kind and full of mercy. A comforter to those who need comfort. A Father to the fatherless. Strength to those who have no strength. God who does all things for our sake and not His own that we be partakers of His Divine Nature. We are instructed what His Divine Nature is …don’t be as those who love the best seats over others as lords over the heritage of God …but instead be you as those who serve. You said: All the modern translations have "Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
So instead He considered equality with God something to use to his own advantage? Where? Where is that His Nature …using equality with His Father for his own advantage?
Is there any reason whatsoever to think the nature of God, equality with God…is something to be used to his own advantage? Did Jesus Christ use the nature of God …equality to God..to his advantage? No. For our advantage He was made (become)weak, so that we be made (become) strong. For our advantage He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh to put away sin in the flesh. Paul said it countless times that the Spirit entrusted unto Paul was not for his own taking advantage of the body (warning against “using the Spirit of God for own advantage” but always instead “for you”. For “your edification”, “you’re building up in Christ.” Which is the Nature of God. This is laid out in “you have had fathers after the flesh that correct you after their own desires” But God corrects for our profit.” Why do we claim it is against God’s Nature to say Jesus Christ did not think equality with God was something to use for his advantage? When that is totally not against God’s Nature. Another passage that supports his not taking advantage of “equal unto” or “as the Nature of God” is if the Master has suffered then so does the servant suffer as His Master, equality, equal unto …all in the context of being “alike” not the servant above his master but “as” His Master, Father. Why does He think it isn’t robbery to be like His Father? For the Joy set before Him …He did not consider it thievery to be Christ. When the thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy …there was no offense in “I must Go” even rebuking Peter who tried to prevent Him from Going to the cross. Paul is another example of not using the message of God to his own advantage, seeing it Not as robbery but “I count it all dung that is loss that I may win Christ” “not being found in Him having my own righteousness but The Righteousness of Christ.”
You said: Here, it’s saying that
Jesus did not want to use the advantage of being equal with God, when there is no reason to think this is what it means.
^Really? “The doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me, the Doctrine belongs to Him. If any speaks of himself you will know it is not true, for he speaks of himself” …his own advantage. This should be well seen in seeking your own advantage or not abusing the word of God for your own advantage.
You said: It's actually the opposite of one another. (No WE enforce
it is the opposite of He didn’t desire to use equality with God for his own advantage). Saying that sounds like stealing from God, robbery from God to suggest His nature is to not desire to use it for his own advantage. That sounds weak. Where is His Power, His Authority in not using equality with God for his own advantage? Go talk to Benny Hinn or some prosperity teachers. They might agree it is robbery to even consider it wasn’t for his own advantage.
You said: One says He considered being equal with God; and the other, that He did not desire using the advantage of being equal with God.
…show where He desired to use being equal to God, His Father, to his advantage. If you can then what is the Nature of God? Are we still stuck there in “Give unto us a Lion! We do not want nor desire a Lamb!” Suggesting it is in opposition to the Nature of God to not desire it for his advantage but for the profit of others where Christ said “I am lowly and
of a humble Spirit” is to say (Imo) one version says Christ is equal to God In authority and Lordship to His advantage like a Lion who is King! The other version presents a humble submissive Lamb not after His own advantage but instead seeking after the advantage of others therefore Glorifying His Father and not himself in being made like unto —equal—to God. Not like satan who very much took it and ran desiring to be better than God. Above God in for satans own advantage and certainly not for others or us.
That is just one text we say is poorly translated because something is lost. What is lost? Saying it is wrong that He didn’t see being equal with God as something to use for his own advantage? Hmm…our desire to use it for our own advantage? We consider that robbery. Something stolen, robbery, removed, or taken out from by the translation “He did not see being equal unto God as something to use for his own advantage.” What was lost in this modern translation that we say is in error? I guess I’m really struggling with why this is in error : “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.