Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

Philippians 2:6

KJV - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

NIV - Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

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

NLT - Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

Holman - who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
Posted

Philippians 2:6

KJV - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

NIV - Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

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

NLT - Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

Holman - who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.


I don't see how any of those translations line up with this concept that Christ was incapable of grasping equality with God.
  • Members
Posted

Then, with regard to the NIV and the NASB, since they both use the word "grasping," what do you think those two translations are saying?

  • Members
Posted

I have New King James Precious Moments Bibles two of them are personalised I can't burn those Bibles since they are personalised. One of them is a purse like Bible and it's a collectors edition so I am not tossing that out. I wouldn't Burn it because even tho it's not the inspired word of God. Someone in the lost and dying world can be Saved with them and then go from there. I think you need to worry more about the NIV and the New world Translations and so so because they are off the way against God.

  • Members
Posted

Then, with regard to the NIV and the NASB, since they both use the word "grasping," what do you think those two translations are saying?


Same thing that the KJV is saying, just with a different word. :)
  • Members
Posted

Not so...

KJB: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

Thought it would not be robbery - thought it would be rightfully His to be equal with God.

NIpV: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,"

Did not consider it graspable or attainable - did not think it was His to attain - thought it would be robbery to attain it.

They're completely opposite statements!

Regarding leaven, it can refer to a particular sinner, and to sin in general (e.g., "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"). "Christ our passover" gives us the picture that Christ, as the passover, was without leaven. Christ speaks of leaven in reference to doctrine.

  • Members
Posted



Same thing that the KJV is saying, just with a different word. :)


I agree. Grasping is just like the KJV use of the word robbery. How can it deny the deity of Christ when in the very beginning it confirms it by saying "being in very nature God"? I don't think this verse is at all heresy- instead, it's saying exactly what the Greek says, and exactly what the KJV says but in different words. I think it's just people having a difficult time grasping the meaning of 'grasping'. :cool

I don't know of anyone who uses the NIV that interprets that verse how people here are suggesting.
  • Members
Posted

I think it's just people having a difficult time grasping the meaning of 'grasping'.


I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert in Greek, nor will I ever fool anyone into believing that I am. However, I can research fairly well. But if I'm wrong, please tell me where, so I know better how to go between the KJV and the Greek.

What I see is that the Greek word "harpagmos" means plunder and robbery , according to Strong's. Nowhere does the word "grasp" come into play, so why do the other versions use "grasp"? Now, I did find that Strong's defines "harpazo" as to seize, but that's not the word used in Philippians 2:6. And, the question still remains, because "seize" has a different connotation than "grasp."

So, I peeked in my Webster's 1828 for the words "robbery" and "grasp." According to Webster's, "robbery" means "the forcible and felonious taking from the person of another any money or goods, putting him in fear, that is, by violence or by menaces of death or personal injury." Then, Webster's defines "grasp" as "to seize and hold by clasping or embracing with the fingers or arms." It seems both words mean "taking something." However, grasp simply means to grab or hold onto something. Robbery, on the other hand, indicates taking something that doesn't rightfully belong to the robber.

Let's look at the two versions of Philippians 2:6 again:


KJV - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
NIV - Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,


The way I look at the versions and context of this verse is that the KJV is telling me that Jesus didn't take something that didn't already belong to Him. The NIV tells me that Jesus didn't think His equality with God was something to be held onto. Therefore, if you put those verses back into context, Jesus maintains His deity in the KJV, while the NIV indicates that Jesus gave up His deity to become "the form of a servant." Thus, in my opinion, the NIV says Jesus was not 100 percent God while He was 100 percent man.

Does that make any sense? Am I reading too much into it? Please, help me out if I'm wrong.

Mitch
  • Members
Posted

I guess we are dealing with the mentality that "no doctrines are changed in the modern versions"; therefore they cannot (ie. are unable or unwilling to) accept anything is actually different or changed...

If they meant the same thing, why was there such a public outcry when the first edition of the NKJV came out with a reading like that - and why did the publishers give in to public pressure and change the verse back to be more like the KJV?

Jesus is God - He doesn't need to steal anything from God to declare Himself as such; however, the other rendering makes it as though He was not God and it wasn't within His grasp at all.

  • Members
Posted

I guess we are dealing with the mentality that "no doctrines are changed in the modern versions"; therefore they cannot (ie. are unable or unwilling to) accept anything is actually different or changed...

If they meant the same thing, why was there such a public outcry when the first edition of the NKJV came out with a reading like that - and why did the publishers give in to public pressure and change the verse back to be more like the KJV?

Jesus is God - He doesn't need to steal anything from God to declare Himself as such; however, the other rendering makes it as though He was not God and it wasn't within His grasp at all.

I totally agree, Jerry. :thumb

There is one thing that I have never been able to figure out for the life of me::::::::::

***We know that God gave us His Word (complete) and His Words (each and every one of them that He wanted us to have).

***We also know that He preserved His Word(s) all down thru the ages.

***He even promised that His Word would not return unto Him void (empty, or without meaning).

***We know that God has placed His Word above His very Name and at the Name of Jesus every knee will bow.

Now for the quandary that I have:::::::::::::::

Why would it be that man in his incredibly sinful condition would seek to change God's tried and true Word(s), in all of their perfection for man's inferior and often ambiguous words.

Oh, wait a minute, I think we see the reason::::::::

These MVs are all borne of a conspiratorial plot fom the devil to water down the Scripture and eventually render it null and void thru many changes. At present, the MVs still contain some of the Word(s) of God. The next cycle of revisions will have even less, and the next..., etc., etc., etc. It isn't any wonder that Jesus said, rhetorically, when He comes again, "Will He even find faith on the earth".
  • Members
Posted

Not so...

KJB: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

Thought it would not be robbery - thought it would be rightfully His to be equal with God.

NIpV: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,"

Did not consider it graspable or attainable - did not think it was His to attain - thought it would be robbery to attain it.

They're completely opposite statements!

Regarding leaven, it can refer to a particular sinner, and to sin in general (e.g., "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"). "Christ our passover" gives us the picture that Christ, as the passover, was without leaven. Christ speaks of leaven in reference to doctrine.


To begin with, the NIV Interlinear has nothing about "grasp" so the translation you gave from the NIV is incorrect. Secondly, The NIV given in your post does not match your interpretation. The translation was, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," The interpretation was: "Did not consider it graspable or attainable - did not think it was His to attain - thought it would be robbery to attain it". The verse doesn't say "graspable", it says "something to be grasped". In other words, because Christ is God He didn't need to grasp (hold tightly to) deity because it was His by nature. The context proves your interpretation incorrect. That is to say, the verse, even in the translation you give, begins, "Who being in very nature God". You can't begin a verse by saying that Christ's very nature was God and end the same verse by saying "did not think it was His to attain". That is a contradiction between the two phrases of this one verse.

Love,
Madeline
  • Members
Posted

To begin with, the NIV Interlinear has nothing about "grasp" so the translation you gave from the NIV is incorrect.


Well, I don't have access to the Interlinear, but the NIV versions in my bookcase and at Bible Gateway.com had the word "grasped" in that verse. So, you're saying the NIV Interlinear doesn't match the NIV? Wow, it just gets better and better, doesn't it?


That is a contradiction between the two phrases of this one verse.


Not necessarily. Because Jesus is God, He has equality with God on His own without "stealing" any from God. It's similar to saying, "Because I am a man, I have the same characteristics of men." That's not a contradiction; that's an explanation of the previous fact.

Mitch
  • Members
Posted

Well, I don't have access to the Interlinear, but the NIV versions in my bookcase and at Bible Gateway.com had the word "grasped" in that verse. So, you're saying the NIV Interlinear doesn't match the NIV? Wow, it just gets better and better, doesn't it?


First of all chev1958, do you think inserting sarcastic remarks is beneficial to the reader? It can definitely do without it. It upsets the reader, and the readers mind may become clouded as a result. I didn't say that the NIV Interlinear doesn't match the NIV, I clearly said "To begin with, the NIV Interlinear has nothing about "grasp" so the translation you gave from the NIV is incorrect." The posters interpretation, not the NIV itself.


Not necessarily. Because Jesus is God, He has equality with God on His own without "stealing" any from God. It's similar to saying, "Because I am a man, I have the same characteristics of men." That's not a contradiction; that's an explanation of the previous fact.

Mitch


I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
The New International Version - Anglicised, (London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.) 1984.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

It may not be a clear contradiction, but I think it could be taken as a contradiction.

Love,
Madeline
  • Members
Posted

First of all chev1958, do you think inserting sarcastic remarks is beneficial to the reader?

Many times, yes, especially to someone who also employs sarcasm as well. I guess I've been misreading your postings all this time. Therefore, I apologize for employing a literary tool toward you that you sometimes use in your postings toward others.

I didn't say that the NIV Interlinear doesn't match the NIV, I clearly said "To begin with, the NIV Interlinear has nothing about "grasp" so the translation you gave from the NIV is incorrect." The posters interpretation, not the NIV itself.

Maybe you should be clearer in your comments. If you mean "interpretation," then say "interpretation." Since you said "translation" and we were talking "translations," the logical conclusion was that you were accusing the original poster of incorrectly quoting the NIV. Making unclear statements lead people to wrong conclusions, and thus, you get sarcasm.

Oh, and BTW, the post you were initially concerned about was Samer's, not mine. If you're going to chastise someone, please try to get your facts right.

Mitch

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...