Bible Problem

[Netchaplain]

not that it matters but my mother is 92 and she taught me something the other day that I will never forget. To me it was a valuable lesson. We were sitting outside, her on the swing under her porch. The sweat was pouring off me. While my mother had a jacket on.

I asked her, “can we go inside, mom? I’m smothering….it is too hot.”

She kept swinging, simply asserting, “It is not hot.”

We started this back and forth. My, “mom, I’m hot. See, I’m sweating the heat is so bad.”

She shook her head over and over, saying, “I don’t know what is wrong with you, but it is not hot.”

I’m sweating horribly. her in her jacket saying “it feels cool.”
Finally I stopped. Realizing from her perspective of 92 …she was fully convinced, her perspective was …jacket and all … “It is NOT hot. It IS cool.”
From my 54 years perspective and menopausal “I’m dying here…It is so hot I can’t breathe!”

Point is. Just because you tell me you are a hundred percent right from your perspective. I get it. But that does not mean I do not have a perspective also. I thought a lot about that exchange with my mom. For starters I got agitated trying to force her to agree with me and to agree that it is hot. But she sincerely being 92, her perspective remained different. And no matter how much I tried to force my perspective onto her…it didn’t change her “it is cool, and not hot.”

I thought about it …trying to communicate with others here on this board or about God’s word. And sometimes the exchanges are just like the exchange with my mother. “It is hot.” “No, it is cool.”

I do know what you mean, and it sounds like you're very patient and kind of tough.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I do know what you mean, and it sounds like you're very patient and kind of tough.

My patience was wearing thin. But it helped my becoming irritated or annoyed with her, and that is why I wanted to share the experience. Honestly at first I felt like mom was selfish and only thinks about how she sees things. Not considering me or my discomfort at all. But then I was convicted because I realized in that moment that I do the same thing —selfish and only think about how I see things. Not considering anyone else’s discomfort—in having this opinion that everyone should agree (talking about my perspective on God now) as if the only perspective that matters is mine. I was convicted that I have a short-sighted opinion focus solely on how I perceive. Even becoming annoyed, irritated and not patient at all when others see it differently.

Concerning it being wrong “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
I’m not sure I understand your perspective. I think…and I could be wrong… your perspective is there is an advantage to the Nature of God..in that being the Nature of God is profitable to be like Him. How He is to be sought after and is every good advantage as in profitable unto every good thing? Is this why it bothers you that it says He didn’t see it as something to be used for his own advantage? As if saying ..the modern translation suggests it is unprofitable? The modern version downplaying who He is?

Trying to see your perspective. If so, I can acknowledge that. But still to me I also see He didn’t use it to His own advantage but for the advantage (profit) of others restored unto the Father. Which to be isn’t downplaying who He is, but the opposite in setting Him apart from those who do use it for their own advantage.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Not sure what versions you're talking about, but 10 of the most popular modern translations interpolated it.

NLT
NIV
ESV
CSB
NASB20
NASB95
LSB
NET
RSV
ASV

The omissions are the worse offense, but interpolating and transposing result in a different meaning and thought; of which there are many.

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

Robbery: Harpagmos:

1. the act of seizing, robbery
2. a thing seized or to be seized
   1. booty to deem anything a prize
   2. a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained
3. Please show me how any of the versions you mentioned changed the meaning of the TR English translation aka KJV.

New International Version
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

New Living Translation
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

NASB 1995
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

English Standard Version
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Christian Standard Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited.

Literal Standard Version
who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not something to be seized to be equal to God,

NET Bible
who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,

American Standard Version
who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:6-11

Revised Standard Version

​

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

 

[Netchaplain]

Concerning it being wrong “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
I’m not sure I understand your perspective. I think…and I could be wrong… your perspective is there is an advantage to the Nature of God..in that being the Nature of God is profitable to be like Him.

I like what you said, but why would one think Christ would use His Deity to His own advantage. I don't think the thought makes sense or should even be there. It sounds like thinking maybe Christ would use it to His advantage, which doesn't make sense, since He never has done anything wrong. It sounds accusatory! Just saying, and nothing personal or offensive. God bless! I'll stick with reading the entire Word of God, much of which the Minority Text lacks.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I like what you said, but why would one think Christ would use His Deity to His own advantage. I don't think the thought makes sense or should even be there. It sounds like thinking maybe Christ would use it to His advantage, which doesn't make sense, since He never has done anything wrong. It sounds accusatory! Just saying, and nothing personal or offensive. God bless! I'll stick with reading the entire Word of God, much of which the Minority Text lacks.

Am I misunderstanding the modern translation again then? Because I thought it says, agreeing with you, He did not consider it as to be used for his own as advantage

 

[Netchaplain]

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

1. Please show me how any of the versions you mentioned changed the meaning of the TR English translation aka KJV.

What you are showing me is that they all contain the same interposition (change of thought from the original meaning)! Plus we are just nit-picking compared to how many interpositions and transpositions they contain.

Plus, no one can accuse Christ of any possible wrong doing, which to me is what it seems to be. Why would one think Christ might do anything to His own advantage? The interposition has no reason to be there, it sounds accusatory!

They all changed the meaning!

 

[Netchaplain]

Am I misunderstanding the modern translation again then? Because I thought it says, agreeing with you, He did not consider it as to be used for his own as advantage

But why even think that He would possibly do something like that?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

But why even think that He would possibly do something like that?

To me that is not the point of why is there even a need to say it …that He did not consider it to be used for his own advantage. As if suggesting He would. I don’t think it is suggesting He would consider it as to be used for His own advantage but stating what Nature He is of, the Nature of God. Like not thinking it as robbery …but for the joy set before Him endured…

Hebrews 10:34 Lexicon: For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.

biblehub.com

to me that passage of Him being the Nature of God speaks of the Humble Spirit Christ is of, which Spirit is of God. Where He is of a Humble Spirit. With those broken-hearted. Again, I don’t think it is suggesting He would use it to His own advantage BUT instead …pointing out, making boldened, THIS is the Nature of God: He would not use it to his own advantage. Why even say it? Because we need to hear it??? Over and over again because of the nature to use it for our own advantage. Sometimes even being unaware that is how we are using Him. Paul even spoke of making it of no effect …by seeking it for our own advantage. Scolding about how “by your traditions you have made the Word of no effect.” And also the passage on…you ask but you ask amiss to use it on your own lust. Why even the need to say what is obvious? “Why do we even need to think that?” that He did not consider it as to be used for his own advantage? Then why so often is that exactly how it is used for our own advantage? If we already know that is not Him, for or after His own advantage, then why do we need to hear it? Good question. But to me the Bible and life itself shows a lot of times that is what we call His nature, for our own advantage. Point is …just because we say we already know that, why point it out? as if..That seems like suggesting He would use it for His advantage. To me that doesn’t take away that it fits “not for His own advantage” with what is the Nature of God that the passage is speaking of.

 

[Netchaplain]

To me that is not the point of why is there even a need to say it …that He did not consider it to be used for his own advantage. As if suggesting He would. I don’t think it is suggesting He would consider it as to be used for His own advantage but stating what Nature He is of, the Nature of God. Like not thinking it as robbery …but for the joy set before Him endured…

I believe the scribe just took liberty to say what he wanted, which has no meaning to the text and is out of character, making it an errant reading. It's ok if you don't consider this a problem, but to me changing and adding words compared to the original is a big deal with me. Thanks for your replies though and God bless!

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I believe the scribe just took liberty to say what he wanted, which has no meaning to the text and is out of character, making it an errant reading. It's ok if you don't consider this a problem, but to me changing and adding words compared to the original is a big deal with me. Thanks for your replies though and God bless!

I understand. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts though. I’m really not pushing for modern translations. I’ve always read the KJV because it was the version I began with, so that is what I’ve grown comfortable with. Sometimes I check the Lexicon and find verses that are different from the KJV. it helps. God bless you too.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

@Netchaplain
Bottom line; what is your recommendation for the most accurate of translations, based on your research of the oldest manuscripts we have ?

KJV 1611, Available KJV, or NKJV ?

I have loved the KJV by Thompson w / chain references, for it was my first introduction to God thru his word.
The poetic archaic language soothes my heart.
I will, however, change after 40 something yrs to a more accurate version, for my spiritual growth, that enhances God's word to us rather than detracts of it. We are surely in a day when we need to draw closer to the fire !

What is your recommendation?

 

[Patrick1966]

I agree with much of your reply, but it's my opinion that one will not grow as much reading translations that mix true Scripture with the false readings, and esp. the omitted Scriptures; of which there are hundreds. For thirty years of my 47 years of studying the Bible I use to mark where I left off, then return there when I went back to read. I suppose I read the NT about 30 times and the OT three times. When I read a modern translation it didn't take long at all. I eventually found out why. There is much less Scripture in them than the Traditional Text. Hundreds of omissions (Mat 4:4). I can show you many if you like!

Thanks for the reply and God bless!

Which Bible translation do you use?

 

[Netchaplain]

@Netchaplain
Bottom line; what is your recommendation for the most accurate of translations, based on your research of the oldest manuscripts we have ?

KJV 1611, Available KJV, or NKJV ?

I have loved the KJV by Thompson w / chain references, for it was my first introduction to God thru his word.
The poetic archaic language soothes my heart.
I will, however, change after 40 something yrs to a more accurate version, for my spiritual growth, that enhances God's word to us rather than detracts of it. We are surely in a day when we need to draw closer to the fire !

What is your recommendation?

NKJV is best because it's one of the translations that contains the entire word. The modern translations can't say that. God bless!

 

[Netchaplain]

Which Bible translation do you use?

KJV and NKJV. God bless!

 

[Patrick1966]

KJV and NKJV. God bless!

Thanks. What do you say about this?

Matthew 25:46 KJV
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 25:46 CLNT
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian.

 

[Netchaplain]

Thanks. What do you say about this?

Matthew 25:46 KJV
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 25:46 CLNT
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian.

Hi, and thanks for your reply! I see two problems: "coming" is unnecessary, which should be "going." They also have the wrong word "chastening," which the definition is "to correct by punishment or suffering"; "to purify," etc.

The RCC teaches the false doctrine of purgatory, and is used to get other to believe one can pray someone out of here and into heaven. Very false!

If you check your Bible in two places you can know if it's from the false manuscripts. 2Sam says "Elhanan killed Goliath," which is an error. 1Jn 5:7 and many other passages are entirely omitted; and they have many problem with transposing and interpolating passages, which changes the original reading. But most don't seem to know the seriousness of altering Scripture..

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What you are showing me is that they all contain the same interposition (change of thought from the original meaning)! Plus we are just nit-picking compared to how many interpositions and transpositions they contain.

Plus, no one can accuse Christ of any possible wrong doing, which to me is what it seems to be. Why would one think Christ might do anything to His own advantage? The interposition has no reason to be there, it sounds accusatory!

They all changed the meaning!

Tell me, what do you believe is the change of thought. You said it is a change, I am trying to find out what you think was changed.

What seems and what is in this case are two very different realities.

Both passages acknowledge the deity of Jesus, and both the KJV and the other translations say that His deity was not something to be seized. Keep this verse in context.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

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:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

the passage clearly declares that Jesus did not consider His deity something to be held onto , but emptied HImself and became a man and died for us!

It literally says in all these passages (except four) that Jesus did not consider His equality with God the Father something to be seized and plundered!

 

[Patrick1966]

Hi, and thanks for your reply! I see two problems: "coming" is unnecessary, which should be "going." They also have the wrong word "chastening," which the definition is "to correct by punishment or suffering"; "to purify," etc.

The RCC teaches the false doctrine of purgatory, and is used to get other to believe one can pray someone out of here and into heaven. Very false!

If you check your Bible in two places you can know if it's from the false manuscripts. 2Sam says "Elhanan killed Goliath," which is an error. 1Jn 5:7 and many other passages are entirely omitted; and they have many problem with transposing and interpolating passages, which changes the original reading. But most don't seem to know the seriousness of altering Scripture..

Do you believe the KJV translation about punishment being "eternal"?

 

[Netchaplain]

Do you believe the KJV translation about punishment being "eternal"?

Definitely! The Scriptures are quite voluminous on this issue and cannot be avoided. It may seem hard to many but the truth stands for the benefit of Bible believers. I think it's a very stern warning to keep us desiring God's will.

 

[Patrick1966]

Definitely! The Scriptures are quite voluminous on this issue and cannot be avoided. It may seem hard to many but the truth stands for the benefit of Bible believers. I think it's a very stern warning to keep us desiring God's will.

Well, if it's true that people are sent to a forever "Hell", then Paul is wrong and Jesus is NOT the savior of "all" men.

1 Timothy 4:10-11 KJV
10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

11 These things command and teach.