Adventist Online

Compare the difference between the KJV and the NIV or NASB at Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1.

What do you see as the main difference? (The NKJV is the same as the NIV and NASB in these verses.)

1) At Titus 2: 13, the KJV says, "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ."

How many people are spoken of here? Who is Jesus Christ according to this translation?

The NIV and most other modern translations read, "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ."

Who is Jesus Christ according to this translation?

2) At 2 Peter 1: 1, the KJV reads, "the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ."

How many people are spoken of here?

Now compare the same verse as translated by most modern translations, as in NIV--

"the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

In these instances, the NIV and modern translations translate these verses correctly, showing clearly that Jesus Christ is our God.

The KJV translators did not translate those verses correctly because they didn't understand some rules of Greek grammar that we've learned since 1611.

These are among the two clearest statements in the entire Bible that Jesus Christ is God.

If you compare 2 Peter 1: 1 with 1: 11, you will see the same kind of construction. It calls Jesus "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." He is both Lord and Savior, the same reason grammatically that verse 1 declares Jesus to be both God and Savior. If verse 11 is translated correctly, then verse 1 is also, because both are identical constructions and hence take the same rules.

The New World Translation by the Jehovah Witnesses (who are Arians) shows that they also recognize that this verse teaches the deity of Christ. In order to avoid teaching this, they have added a definite article which does not belong in the phrase, "the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ." Thus they make it refer to two persons, the Father and Jesus, whereas the literal Greek [without the definite article] refers to only one person, Jesus, as both God and Savior.

Therefore, simply by studying these two verses closely as translated in most modern translations, the answer is clearly yes, Jesus Christ is God.

What are your thoughts? All responses welcome.

Views: 25

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Throughout the creation story in Genesis 1 the
word for God is ’Elohim, the plural form of ’Eloha.
Generally, this plural has been interpreted as a plural
of majesty rather than of plurality. However, G.
A. F. Knight has correctly argued that to make this
a plural of majesty is to read into the ancient Hebrew
text a modern concept, since the kings of Israel
and Judah are all addressed in the singular in
the biblical record.14 Furthermore, Knight points out
that the Hebrew words for water and heaven are
both plural. Grammarians have termed this phenomenon
the quantitative plural. Water can appear
in the form of small drops or large oceans. This
quantitative diversity in unity, says Knight, is a fitting
way of understanding the plural ’Elohim. This
also explains why the singular noun ’Adonai is written
as a plural.
In Genesis 1:26, we read “Then God said (singular),
‘Let Us make (plural) man in Our (plural)
image, according to Our (plural) likeness.’” What
is significant is the shift from singular to plural.
Moses is not using a plural verb with ’Elohim, but
God is using a plural verb and plural pronouns in
reference to himself. Some interpreters believe that
God is here speaking to the angels. But according
to Scripture, angels did not participate in creation.
The best explanation is that already in the first chapter
of Genesis there is an indication of a plurality of
persons in God himself.

"Who is speaking in Revelation 1:8—Jehovah or Jesus Christ..that is the Lord God?"
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."Revelation 1:8 NIV

You said "Rev.1:8 then of course it is The God Almighty our Father there as a speaker".. I belief is Jesus...Yeah I know it is a debate with those on the other site...I need time to check this out.
Yes, Jesus Christ is the God who is coming. See Zech. 14: 5; Ps. 96: 13; Is. 66: 15, 16; Mattt. 24: 30, 31; 25: 31; Jude 14; Titus 2: 13 (NASB; NIV; ESV); 1 Thess. 4: 15-17; Rev. 19: 11-16;

God the Father will not be coming with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ comes with "his angels."
john 1, in the begining wa sth eword and th eword wa sgod an dwas with god n becam eflesh n lived amonged ordinary people. john 5,28.29 those that be in the grave shal hear my voice n be raised up some t o life n some to damnation . it is interesting when u compare all that u read both in the old n the new testaments . one is witnesss for the other . EXAMINE YOU FAITH..
John 1:1-3.
Answer:
(a) The term theos without the article is frequently
also used for the Father, even in the very same
chapter (see John 1:6,13,18; Luke 2:14; Acts 5:39;
1 Thess 2:5; 1 John 4:12; and 2 John 9).
(b) Jesus is also the God—Heb 1:8-9; John 20:28.
In other words, the use of the term God–with or
without the article–cannot be used to make a distinction
between God the Father and God the Son.
God the Father is theos and ho theos, and so is the
Son.
(c) Oftentimes, the absence of the article in Greek
denotes special quality and should not be translated
with the indefinite article “a.”
(d) If John had used the definite article each time
theos occurs, he would be claiming that there is
only one divine person. The Father would be the
Son. John 1:1 reads, “In the beginning was the
Word and the Word was with ho theos, and the
Word was theos.” If John had used only ho theos,
we would read: “In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was with ho theos, and the Word
was ho theos.” According to John 1:14 the Word is
Jesus. Therefore, replacing “Word” by “Jesus” we
get the sentence, “In the beginning was Jesus and
Jesus was with ho theos, and Jesus was ho theos.”
Ho theos clearly refers to the Father. The modified
text would read: “In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was with the Father, and the Word
was the Father.” This is theologically wrong. In talking
about two persons of the Godhead John had
no other choice than to use once ho theos and the
next time theos. Therefore, the absence of the article
in the second case cannot be used for arguing
against equality between Father and Son.
Good post, Steven. I agree with everything you said. Wish the JWs and the anti-Trinitarians and Arians among us could grasp it. Thanks.
Understanding God must be from the bible as the whole..not picking only one verse...verses John 1:1-3 are connected to earlier posting in Genesis 1...

Throughout the creation story in Genesis 1 the
word for God is ’Elohim, the plural form of ’Eloha.
Generally, this plural has been interpreted as a plural
of majesty rather than of plurality. However, G.
A. F. Knight has correctly argued that to make this
a plural of majesty is to read into the ancient Hebrew
text a modern concept, since the kings of Israel
and Judah are all addressed in the singular in
the biblical record.14 Furthermore, Knight points out
that the Hebrew words for water and heaven are
both plural. Grammarians have termed this phenomenon
the quantitative plural. Water can appear
in the form of small drops or large oceans. This
quantitative diversity in unity, says Knight, is a fitting
way of understanding the plural ’Elohim. This
also explains why the singular noun ’Adonai is written
as a plural.
In Genesis 1:26, we read “Then God said (singular),
‘Let Us make (plural) man in Our (plural)
image, according to Our (plural) likeness.’” What
is significant is the shift from singular to plural.
Moses is not using a plural verb with ’Elohim, but
God is using a plural verb and plural pronouns in
reference to himself. Some interpreters believe that
God is here speaking to the angels. But according
to Scripture, angels did not participate in creation.
The best explanation is that already in the first chapter
of Genesis there is an indication of a plurality of
persons in God himself.

“Behold, man
has become like one of Us” (Gen 3:22). And some
time later, when men began to build the tower of
Babel, the LORD said, “Come let Us go down and
there confuse their language” (Gen 11:7). Each time
the plurality of the Godhead is emphasized.


At the end of his ministry, Jesus tells his disciples
that they should go “and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt
28:19). In this, the initiatory rite of each believer
into the Christian religion, the doctrine of the Trinity
is clearly stated. First, we note that “in the name”
(eis to onoma) is singular, not plural “in the names.”
To be baptized in the name of the three persons of
the Trinity means to identify oneself with everything
the Trinity stands for; to commit oneself to the Father
the Son and the Holy Spirit.19 Second, the union
of these three names indicates that the Son and
the Holy Spirit are equal with the Father. It would
be rather strange, not to say blasphemous, to unite
the name of the eternal God with a created being
(whether eternally created or at some point of time),
and a force or power in this baptismal formula.
“When the Holy Spirit is put in the same expression
and on the same level as the two other persons
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Holy
Spirit is also viewed as a person and of equal standing
with the Father and the Son.”
Brother Jaroslav,

No offense but you are so confused in your thinking and in your writing that I am removing myself from this discussion with you on this topic. After months and months of trying to talk to you about it, I find you are still in the same spot and repeating the same errors, as if nothing was said before.

You have what is called a "closed system." Wishing you all the best but it is like spinning wheels in place.
I did not get the wrong opinion of you, Jaroslav. After talking with you about the same subject for several months, I have learned to know you quite well.

Your writing is as confused as your thinking. It's almost completely without organization or valid logic. but frankly I doubt you are going to be able change that. I'm not blaming you. I am simply telling you how I see the situation. I would be happy to learn that I am absolutely wrong.

Yes, you are right that I did start the discussion, and I am glad I did. Starting a discussion, however, does not take away the ability or the rights of posters to decide who to converse with.

You are in the same spot in the sense that you are still making the same mistakes in interpreting and understanding texts and doctrines. I have no reason to believe the exchange with you would prove any more productive at this point than it was 6 months ago.

Your post above is typical of your style. So good-by and good-luck.
Jaroslav,
The first step to defending the Trinity is to show you that Jesus and the Father were both eternal and equal. Anti-trinitarians CANNOT believe that to be true. They cannot believe that Jesus Christ is truly God. So giving you a scriptural basis to show that Jesus and the Father were forever, eternal, and equal should create some doubt and open some debate in a anti-trinitarian mind, no? Lead where the whole of scripture takes you. Do not cherry pick texts and avoid all others that don't agree with you.
Jesus Christ is God.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service