- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Sep 16
2 edits
Whether God "possessed" Wisdom or "set up" Wisdom, He could never be WITHOUT His Wisdom.
The Wisdom of God is as long as God Himself is.
Various translations (No not a conspiracy) of Proverbs 8:22 -
Parallel Verses
New International Version
"The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;
New Living Translation
"The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else.
English Standard Version
“The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
New American Standard Bible
"The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.
King James Bible
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
The LORD made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago.
International Standard Version
"The LORD made me as he began his planning, before his ancient activity commenced.
NET Bible
The LORD created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.
New Heart English Bible
"The LORD created me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Jubilee Bible 2000
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
King James 2000 Bible
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
American King James Version
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
American Standard Version
Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old.
Douay-Rheims Bible
The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning.
Darby Bible Translation
Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
English Revised Version
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Originally posted by divegeesterI am sure Darby translated the text as the word was divine, perhaps it was another translation could be mistaken. So tell us what you find objectionable in the New World translation rendering and how it diverges from the Greek. This should be intetesting. Tell the forum what the Moffatt translation says.
oh really? Well here is the Darby translation:
"1In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJohn 1:1 - John Nelson Darby - A New Translation
I am sure Darby translated the text as the word was divine, perhaps it was another translation could be mistaken. So tell us what you find objectionable in the New World translation rendering and how it diverges from the Greek. This should be intetesting.
Darby Bible Translation
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I think I may know what you might be referring to which Darby said he did not believe the sense of the Greek was supportive to the Deity of Christ, a truth which he counted as foundational to the Christian faith by the way.
But I don't think I will tell you now because I want you to believe that Jesus is God become a man as the NT says.
But there is one other verse that JN Darby thought had a different sense to it.
Darby translated both Hebrew and Greek. More importantly he was a very godly man consecrated to serve God for his whole life.
Do you believe that deeper consecration and obedience leads to deeper understanding of the revelation of God? I absolutely do believe that.
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonship
John 1:1 - John Nelson Darby - A New Translation
[b] Darby Bible Translation
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I think I may know what you might be referring to which Darby said he did not believe the sense of the Greek was supportive to the Deity of Christ, a truth which he ...[text shortened]... obedience leads to deeper understanding of the revelation of God? I absolutely do believe that.[/b]lets stick to whats in the Bible and leave alone whats not shall we?
Originally posted by divegeester1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
Well that's what it says in the Bible; well in all the Bibles except the JW one 😉
1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott ( interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,Brooklyn.
1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.
1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” Johannes - Johannes Schneider,Berlin.
1979 “and a god was the Logos” - Johannes by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
Now I count at least six other renderings and the list is not exhaustive which render the text either 'the word was a god' or 'the word was divine, godlike etc' making your statement, (we wont call it a lie just yet) demonstrably FALSE!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn the previous page you said this:
I am sure Darby translated the text as the word was divine, perhaps it was another translation could be mistaken. So tell us what you find objectionable in the New World translation rendering and how it diverges from the Greek. This should be intetesting. Tell the forum what the Moffatt translation says.
"I personally dont think you (divegeester) have the necessary knowledge to know what an accurate translation is to be honest your Biblical knowledge being scant to non existent at best."
My statement which you insulted me over was in fact correct and YOU were incorrect, so do you have the grace to acknowledge this and apologise for your insult?
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by divegeesterNo its not an insult its a fact and we are here to prove it. Tell the forum and this is the third time I have asked you what you find objectionable about the New World Translations rendering of the text John 1:1 and how it diverges from the Greek.
On the previous page you said this:
[b]"I personally dont think you have the necessary knowledge to know what an accurate translation is to be honest your Biblical knowledge being scant to non existent at best. Infact lets put you to the test. What exactly is it about the New world translation rendering that you find disagrees with the Greek text."[/b ...[text shortened]... er was in fact correct; do you have the grace to acknowledge this and apologise for your insult?
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by divegeester
On the previous page you said this:
[b]"I personally dont think you (divegeester) have the necessary knowledge to know what an accurate translation is to be honest your Biblical knowledge being scant to non existent at best."
My statement which you insulted me over was in fact correct and YOU were incorrect, so do you have the grace to acknowledge this and apologise for your insult?[/b]
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you provide the links to your sources?
1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott ( interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An Ameri ...[text shortened]... ivine, godlike etc' making your statement, (we wont call it a lie just yet) demonstrably FALSE!
Are these broadly acknowledged translations?
Why have you nay posts part of the scripture?
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou cited Darby and you were wrong. Admit it?
No its not an insult its a fact and we are here to prove it. Tell the forum and this is the third time I have asked you what you find objectionable about the New World Translations rendering of the text John 1:1 and how it diverges from the Greek.
Originally posted by divegeesterThese are translations which reference the exact clause which is in dispute, the third clause of John 1:1, feel free to research them on the internet.
Can you provide the links to your sources?
Are these broadly acknowledged translations?
Why have you nay posts part of the scripture?
Now you were telling us about the New world translation and how the rendering of John 1:1 differs from the Greek.
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI find the JW version of the Bible to be a travesty, a triumph of corporate cultism over truth. The scripture in John as appears in the vast majority of most accepted mainstream Bibles indicates that Jesus is the word and he is God. You lot don't like that have amazingly come up with a translation with is different.
No its not an insult its a fact and we are here to prove it. Tell the forum and this is the third time I have asked you what you find objectionable about the New World Translations rendering of the text John 1:1 and how it diverges from the Greek.
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by divegeesterI already have, it was the Moffat translation that I was thinking of,
You cited Darby and you were wrong. Admit it?
lets add it to the list,
At John 1:1 Moffat renders:
The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
Originally posted by divegeesterYou were telling us how the rendering of the New world translation of John 1:1 differs from the Greek.
I find the JW version of the Bible to be a travesty, a triumph of corporate cultism over truth. The scripture in John as appears in the vast majority of most accepted mainstream Bibles indicates that Jesus is the word and he is God. You lot don't like that have amazingly come up with a translation with is different.