PDA

View Full Version : How one verse exposes the CT & the new translations.



tgallison
Apr 20th 2009, 08:07 PM
Or what happens when you start messing with translations

In 1901 the English Text in John 1:18 read--

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/john/1.htm)
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

What has the Critical Text supporters changed?

1. They changed Son to God.
2. They changed begotten to only or unique.
3. They changed in the bosom to close to the Father’s side.
4. They changed declared to explained.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
What happens when you start changing things, it creates problems for the translators.
When you change Son to God, and begotten to only, and in the bosom to close to the Father------------

You end up with the Only God standing close to the Father.

The Father is no longer God because he is standing close to the only God.
This then creates verbal gymnastics for the translators. One of the things they tried was changing only to unique.
You then end up with the unique God standing close to the Father.

Now try explaining this one. If Jesus is the unique God, is the Father not unique? Or do we have two unique God’s? Or is the Father not God?

Do the new translations create problems of doctrine? Definitely!
Why does most of the changes relate to the doctrine of Christ?
__________________________________________________ _____________________
What about changing declared to explained? They mean the same thing don’t they?
No they don’t mean the same thing. Explained has the connotation of speech, either written or verbal, and will not be found anywhere else in the Bible explaining the full content of its meaning. For examples, some verses with declare in them explain a fuller meaning, for the Bible exhorts us to compare scripture with scripture.

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/psalms/19.htm) (Psalm 19:1)
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork.

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/psalms/30.htm) (Psalm 30:9)
What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth?

American King James Version (http://kjv.us/2_corinthians/3.htm) (2 Cor. 3:3)
For as much as you are manifestly declared to be the letter of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

The definition of the Greek word exēgeomai which is translated explained in the NASB follows.
__________________________________________________ ______________________


Transliteration



exēgeomai

Pronunciation
eks-ā-ge'-o-mī (Key) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1834&t=KJV)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
from G1537 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1537&t=KJV) and G2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2233&t=KJV)
TDNT Reference


2:908,303 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1834&t=KJV)

Vines


View Entry (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1834&t=KJV)

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to lead out, be leader, go before
2) metaph., to draw out in narrative, unfold a teaching
a) to recount, rehearse
b) to unfold, declare
1) the things relating to God
2) used in Greek writing of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc.


Since the word explained in the NASB is found only 7 times total in the Old Testament compared with the ASB which uses the word declare, that is found 127 times in the Old Testament, which translation, the ASB or the NASB, forms a bonding and unity of words that makes compatible the various books of the Bible?

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/john/1.htm)
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

NASB (John 1:18) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NIV (John 1:18) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

International Standard Version (http://isv.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm) (©2008) (http://isv.org/)
No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

Why has this happened? Doesn’t anyone care?

Terrell

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 20th 2009, 08:17 PM
Not really. I'm convinced that my NASB is more accurate than the KJV, with my ESV not far behind. Besides that, I simply cannot read the KJV and be spiritually blessed, since the language is antiquated and not comprehensible to the average reader anymore. Thirdly, translation automatically implies loss of meaning. After all, no one language can be translated literally to another without some loss of meaning, context, culture, feeling, and implication. As such, any English translation is as flawed as the next.

With all that having been said, the majority of scholars agree that the NASB is the most accurate. Why should I disagree with what Biblical scholars have established? No, I'll keep reading my NASB. And no, I don't care.

amazzin
Apr 20th 2009, 08:30 PM
Not really. I'm convinced that my NASB is more accurate than the KJV, with my ESV not far behind. Besides that, I simply cannot read the KJV and be spiritually blessed, since the language is antiquated and not comprehensible to the average reader anymore. Thirdly, translation automatically implies loss of meaning. After all, no one language can be translated literally to another without some loss of meaning, context, culture, feeling, and implication. As such, any English translation is as flawed as the next.

With all that having been said, the majority of scholars agree that the NASB is the most accurate. Why should I disagree with what Biblical scholars have established? No, I'll keep reading my NASB. And no, I don't care.

,....what Pilgrim said !!!!

;)

tgallison
Apr 20th 2009, 08:31 PM
Not really. I'm convinced that my NASB is more accurate than the KJV, with my ESV not far behind. Besides that, I simply cannot read the KJV and be spiritually blessed, since the language is antiquated and not comprehensible to the average reader anymore. Thirdly, translation automatically implies loss of meaning. After all, no one language can be translated literally to another without some loss of meaning, context, culture, feeling, and implication. As such, any English translation is as flawed as the next.

With all that having been said, the majority of scholars agree that the NASB is the most accurate. Why should I disagree with what Biblical scholars have established? No, I'll keep reading my NASB. And no, I don't care.

Pilgrimtozion greetings

I can understand how you love your NASB it has the word of God in it, but do facts matter?

Do you believe that God the Son is standing along side of God the Father?

Terrell

Athanasius
Apr 20th 2009, 08:35 PM
That's actually John 1:18, not John 1:16, might want to fix that at the beginning of your post.

tgallison
Apr 20th 2009, 08:37 PM
,....what Pilgrim said !!!!

;)

amazzin greetings

I understand how you to would love the translation you use, but I would ask you the same question, do you believe God the Son is standing along side of God the Father?

tgallison
Apr 20th 2009, 08:38 PM
That's actually John 1:18, not John 1:16, might want to fix that at the beginning of your post.

Thank you. I did not see it.

Athanasius
Apr 20th 2009, 08:41 PM
Thank you. I did not see it.

No problem ;)
As for the content of your post, I'm confused. Are you outlining four differences found within modern translations or four differences found within a specific translation? I use the NASB and there's only one difference - the change of the word declared to explained. I'm afraid I don't see the issue.

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 20th 2009, 08:49 PM
No problem ;)
As for the content of your post, I'm confused. Are you outlining four differences found within modern translations or four differences found within a specific translation? I use the NASB and there's only one difference - the change of the word declared to explained. I'm afraid I don't see the issue.
I concur; I do not see the problem. I see two differences between the ASV and the NASB:

1. Son becomes God. Not really a big problem in my eyes.
2. declared became explained. I'm not quite seeing the point you're making. This is the Strong's translation of the word used for explained:


1) to lead out, be leader, go before
2) metaph., to draw out in narrative, unfold a teaching
a) to recount, rehearse
b) to unfold, declare
1) the things relating to God
2) used in Greek writing of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc.

Honestly and with all possible respect, I think you are making something out of nothing. Meaning is lost in translation, it is inevitable. This is true whether one uses older translations or newer translations. And whatever facts may or may not be good for, they do say that the NASB is the most accurate translation. Not in every verse all the time, but certainly when the whole translation is taken into account.

Again, I don't see your point and I don't really care (not meant maliciously btw, just reiterating my answer to your initial questions).

tgallison
Apr 20th 2009, 08:51 PM
No problem ;)
As for the content of your post, I'm confused. Are you outlining four differences found within modern translations or four differences found within a specific translation? I use the NASB and there's only one difference - the change of the word declared to explained. I'm afraid I don't see the issue.

The topic is the transition or the path we are going down. Each one of the various new translations add their own problems. In unison the problem is magnified.

All of these problems originate from the new found manuscripts, that any one of them standing alone would probably be thrown out, as the monks at Mt Sinai were in the process of doing with one of them.

BroRog
Apr 20th 2009, 08:55 PM
tgallison
1. They changed Son to God.
2. They changed begotten to only or unique.
3. They changed in the bosom to close to the Father’s side.
4. They changed declared to explained.

I believe the term "son" makes more sense than "God" in this context, since four verses earlier John points out that Jesus was "begotten" of the father, making him the begotten son. I'm not sure what it would add to John's point to say that God was begotten, which would be a very strange thing to say.

The term "only begotten" is also used of Isaac, who was not Abraham's only son, but his unique son with respect to the promise God made to Abraham. So I think the translation "unique son" gets to the meaning John intended. There were other sons of God prior to Jesus, especially as each king of Israel was a "son of God" according to 2Samuel 7.

I believe the phrase "in the bosom of" is idiomatic. It's not as if Jesus spends his time literally sitting in the Father's lap. Rather, in light of John's point that Jesus is the "logos" of God and that he "explains" him, the idiom indicates Jesus very close association with the father, such that Jesus can say later, "If you have seen me, you have seen the father."

The words "declared" and "explained" are close to each other in connotation. The Greek word is "exagenomai": to make something fully known by careful explanation or by clear revelation (Louw and Nida Lexicon). We get our English word "exegesis" from that word. John seems to be saying that Jesus makes God fully known to us as he so closely matches the father in every way humanly possible.

Athanasius
Apr 20th 2009, 09:42 PM
The topic is the transition or the path we are going down. Each one of the various new translations add their own problems. In unison the problem is magnified.

All of these problems originate from the new found manuscripts, that any one of them standing alone would probably be thrown out, as the monks at Mt Sinai were in the process of doing with one of them.

Each translation has strengths just as each translation has weaknesses. If you're going to compare every text in unison - as the problem, you claim, is magnified - then you will have to throw out every text. That aside, I think you're making something out of nothing.

tgallison
Apr 20th 2009, 09:53 PM
[quote=BroRog;2049785]I believe the term "son" makes more sense than "God" in this context, since four verses earlier John points out that Jesus was "begotten" of the father, making him the begotten son. I'm not sure what it would add to John's point to say that God was begotten, which would be a very strange thing to say.

BroRog greetings

While the Greek word means only child it also relates to coming out of. You cannot be an only child without being begat by your Father.

The question becomes, was Jesus a son by being begat, as in natural son, or was he adopted, or was it some other method?

There is a duplicity of meanings throughout the various languages and we see this often in the Bible. What makes the Bible unique is that it agrees with itself throughout the various books by various writers throughout the ages, even when they had no clue as to the fullness and complexity and agreement it had within itself.

The only two methods of being a son of God is by a direct relationship as being begat, which is unique, and to be adopted, which also is unique. There may be others that I am not aware of.


The term "only begotten" is also used of Isaac, who was not Abraham's only son, but his unique son with respect to the promise God made to Abraham. So I think the translation "unique son" gets to the meaning John intended.

No Isaac was not Abraham's only begotten son, but he was Abraham's only begotten son who came forth from God. So begotten may well imply in this case, from God.


There were other sons of God prior to Jesus, especially as each king of Israel was a "son of God" according to 2Samuel 7.

It could be said each one was unique, one from another, but none of them were begotten of God.


I believe the phrase "in the bosom of" is idiomatic. It's not as if Jesus spends his time literally sitting in the Father's lap. Rather, in light of John's point that Jesus is the "logos" of God and that he "explains" him, the idiom indicates Jesus very close association with the father, such that Jesus can say later, "If you have seen me, you have seen the father."

It could be well translated arms of God, and that is what I believe it means. I have posted in another thread proof for that fact that Jesus is the arms and right hand of God positionally. He is the power of God which the arm exemplifies, and is what the father gave him.

So when it says in the Bosom or arms of the "Godhead" (pardon that expression, but it is the best way I know to state, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as one God.) it is stating the position of Jesus in the one God.


The words "declared" and "explained" are close to each other in connotation. The Greek word is "exagenomai": to make something fully known by careful explanation or by clear revelation (Louw and Nida Lexicon). We get our English word "exegesis" from that word. John seems to be saying that Jesus makes God fully known to us as he so closely matches the father in every way humanly possible.

They are close, but explaining does not include the spiritual aspect of the word, nor will it be found in any other scripture showing the spiritual aspect of the word. In fact it is hardly found in the Bible in the Old Testament, with any form of explain, found only 7 times in the NASB compared to the ASV which it came out of that has a form of declare 127 times.

Best regards, Terrell

tgallison
Apr 20th 2009, 09:58 PM
Each translation has strengths just as each translation has weaknesses. If you're going to compare every text in unison - as the problem, you claim, is magnified - then you will have to throw out every text. That aside, I think you're making something out of nothing.

If I am making something out of nothing, I pray the Lord will show me.

You have not answered the question, is God the Son standing alongside of God the Father?

In case you have not noticed this is were the NASB has positioned them.

I have no interest in offending anyone, and I understand how you love the Word of God that you read in your translation, but God is a God of truth.

Best regards, Terrell

-SEEKING-
Apr 20th 2009, 10:16 PM
From ESV Study Bible:

"No one has ever seen God, that is, in a full and complete way (cf. 6:46), but some people did see partial revelations of God in the OT. To see God in Christ would be far better (see 14:6). Some ancient manuscripts say “the only Son” here (see esv footnote), but the earliest manuscripts say the only God (using the same word for “only” as 1:14, meaning “unique, one-of-a-kind”). John refers to two different persons here as “God,” as he did in v. 1. John concludes the prologue by emphasizing what he taught in v. 1: Jesus as the Word is God, and he has revealed and explained God to humanity."

That's why I love to read every book I read in 6 different translations. Occasionally I'll even go back to Hebrew or Greek.

BroRog
Apr 20th 2009, 10:48 PM
BroRog greetings

While the Greek word means only child it also relates to coming out of. You cannot be an only child without being begat by your Father.

The question becomes, was Jesus a son by being begat, as in natural son, or was he adopted, or was it some other method?

The Greek word "monogenes" can mean only child, but it can also refer to a unique child, which I believe is John's point. Jesus wasn't the only son of God, but he was the unique son in that all the other kings of Israel were "place holders" for him. The position and title were made for him to fulfill.


The only two methods of being a son of God is by a direct relationship as being begat, which is unique, and to be adopted, which also is unique. There may be others that I am not aware of.The issue behind the word doesn't focus on the process. Whether a son is natural born or adopted, a "monogenes" is a unique one-of-a-kind son.


No Isaac was not Abraham's only begotten son, but he was Abraham's only begotten son who came forth from God. So begotten may well imply in this case, from God.
That is certainly true. But I believe the author of Hebrews had another idea in mind when he said it. For his point, it was important to mention that Isaac was the child of promise in order to make notable Abraham's faith. Though Isaac came from God, and though God could have made another Isaac, the promise rested in one particular Isaac. And so, Abraham's faith was exemplified when he took the risk of putting this one particular Isaac on the alter. The author of Hebrews suggests that Abraham must have believed that God could raise someone from the dead, which is only relevant if he expected that God would not harm this particular Isaac -- his unique son.


It could be said each one was unique, one from another, but none of them were begotten of God.
True, we are all unique. We all have our own special combination of personality, genetics, disposition, and etc. that make us all radically distinct.

But I don't think John is focused on the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. Rather, John seems to be focused on Jesus singular role as the one person among men who shares identity with God. The focus isn't on his ontological uniqueness, but on his unique identity as the God man.

In verse 12, John points out that all believers are born of God and so, being born of God doesn't make us divine or Jesus "monogenes". What makes Jesus uniquely the son of God is that, unlike Solomon, Jesus was not chastized for his own iniquities.


It could be well translated arms of God, and that is what I believe it means. I have posted in another thread proof for that fact that Jesus is the arms and right hand of God positionally. He is the power of God which the arm exemplifies, and is what the father gave him.While the Greek word behind the term "bosom" can be translated "arms", the Greek preposition "eis" suggests the location of Jesus, not the part of God's anatomy he represents. Regardless, as I pointed out from the Lexicon, the phrase "in the bosom of" is idiomatic, which means the phrase has a meaning that goes beyond the dictionary definition of each word taken individually.


They are close, but explaining does not include the spiritual aspect of the word, nor will it be found in any other scripture showing the spiritual aspect of the word. In fact it is hardly found in the Bible in the Old Testament, with any form of explain, found only 7 times in the NASB compared to the ASV which it came out of that has a form of declare 127 times.
When you use the term "spiritual" in this context, to you mean "figurative" or "metaphorical"? As I understand it, the literal conotation of the word indicates when someone "goes out before" a group of people to lead them into battle or for some other reason. But the figurative use of the term outside the NT commonly connotes the interpretation of someone's writings. Five out of the six times it appears in the NT, it speaks about someone who rehearses or relates an event, telling the story of what happened.

Athanasius
Apr 20th 2009, 10:55 PM
You have not answered the question, is God the Son standing alongside of God the Father?

In case you have not noticed this is were the NASB has positioned them.


You're going to have to clarify your question. Previously you said:

When you change Son to God, and begotten to only, and in the bosom to close to the Father------------

You end up with the Only God standing close to the Father.

The Father is no longer God because he is standing close to the only God.
This then creates verbal gymnastics for the translators. One of the things they tried was changing only to unique.
You then end up with the unique God standing close to the Father.

Now try explaining this one. If Jesus is the unique God, is the Father not unique? Or do we have two unique God’s? Or is the Father not God?
However, now you're asking 'is God the Son standing alongside of God the Father' - I don't see how you've derived this from your first set of questions. It occurs to me that anyone who has even a cursory understanding of scripture will understand that in John 1:18 'the only begotten God' refers to God the Son. Thus, no one has seen God except, well, God. Furthermore if you've seen Jesus then you've seen the Father... Oh boy, we're getting confusing now.

To clarify, the NASB renders John 1:18 as follows, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." I then don't understand where you are seeing the change 'bosom of the Father' to 'close to the Father'? The think the only issue here is the one you're creating. Jesus is God, right? I don't see the theological implication in calling him 'only begotten God' as opposed to 'only begotten Son'?

tgallison
Apr 20th 2009, 11:07 PM
From ESV Study Bible:

"No one has ever seen God, that is, in a full and complete way (cf. 6:46), but some people did see partial revelations of God in the OT. To see God in Christ would be far better (see 14:6). Some ancient manuscripts say “the only Son” here (see esv footnote), but the earliest manuscripts say the only God (using the same word for “only” as 1:14, meaning “unique, one-of-a-kind”). John refers to two different persons here as “God,” as he did in v. 1. John concludes the prologue by emphasizing what he taught in v. 1: Jesus as the Word is God, and he has revealed and explained God to humanity."

That's why I love to read every book I read in 6 different translations. Occasionally I'll even go back to Hebrew or Greek.

SEEKING greetings

It is good that you are searching God's Word.

What you need to do is search the History of that which is called the oldest manuscripts.

Whether the correct word here is God or son is not as important as the rest of the verse in the new translations that actually changes doctrine.

When you change in to at, and then at to along side of, and then along side of to close to, you are moving Christ and making a change in doctrine. You are moving Jesus from the inside to the outside. This directly affects the doctrine of one God.

God bless, Terrell

tgallison
Apr 21st 2009, 12:26 AM
[quote=BroRog;2049882]The Greek word "monogenes" can mean only child, but it can also refer to a unique child, which I believe is John's point. Jesus wasn't the only son of God, but he was the unique son in that all the other kings of Israel were "place holders" for him. The position and title were made for him to fulfill.

But remember the position and title that were made for Him, was also made by Him.


The issue behind the word doesn't focus on the process. Whether a son is natural born or adopted, a "monogenes" is a unique one-of-a-kind son.

Remember that the translations that wanted to change the words, first inserted only, which truly doesn't work. Unique and one of a kind do not adequately describe the relationship between the Father and Son.


That is certainly true. But I believe the author of Hebrews had another idea in mind when he said it. For his point, it was important to mention that Isaac was the child of promise in order to make notable Abraham's faith. Though Isaac came from God, and though God could have made another Isaac, the promise rested in one particular Isaac. And so, Abraham's faith was exemplified when he took the risk of putting this one particular Isaac on the alter. The author of Hebrews suggests that Abraham must have believed that God could raise someone from the dead, which is only relevant if he expected that God would not harm this particular Isaac -- his unique son.

But I don't think John is focused on the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. Rather, John seems to be focused on Jesus singular role as the one person among men who shares identity with God. The focus isn't on his ontological uniqueness, but on his unique identity as the God man.

When we try and put God's words in a narrow box it no longer connects with the rest of scripture as it should.


In verse 12, John points out that all believers are born of God and so, being born of God doesn't make us divine or Jesus "monogenes". What makes Jesus uniquely the son of God is that, unlike Solomon, Jesus was not chastized for his own iniquities.

Are you implying that Jesus had iniquities?


While the Greek word behind the term "bosom" can be translated "arms", the Greek preposition "eis" suggests the location of Jesus, not the part of God's anatomy he represents.

Agreed. Jesus's location is in the arms of God, not close to him. Isaiah 53:1 places Jesus as the arm of God figuratively.

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/isaiah/53.htm) (Isaiah 53:1)
Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/isaiah/40.htm) (Isaiah 40:11)
He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and will gently lead those that have their young.


When you use the term "spiritual" in this context, to you mean "figurative" or "metaphorical"? As I understand it, the literal conotation of the word indicates when someone "goes out before" a group of people to lead them into battle or for some other reason. But the figurative use of the term outside the NT commonly connotes the interpretation of someone's writings. Five out of the six times it appears in the NT, it speaks about someone who rehearses or relates an event, telling the story of what happened.

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/luke/16.htm) (Luke 16:22)
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried.

Here it appears to mean within the protection of. But it always appears to me in or within as opposed to alongside of.

Best regards, Terrell

tgallison
Apr 21st 2009, 12:50 AM
You're going to have to clarify your question. Previously you said:
When you change Son to God, and begotten to only, and in the bosom to close to the Father------------

You end up with the Only God standing close to the Father.

The Father is no longer God because he is standing close to the only God.
This then creates verbal gymnastics for the translators. One of the things they tried was changing only to unique.
You then end up with the unique God standing close to the Father.

Now try explaining this one. If Jesus is the unique God, is the Father not unique? Or do we have two unique God’s? Or is the Father not God?
However, now you're asking 'is God the Son standing alongside of God the Father' - I don't see how you've derived this from your first set of questions. It occurs to me that anyone who has even a cursory understanding of scripture will understand that in John 1:18 'the only begotten God' refers to God the Son. Thus, no one has seen God except, well, God. Furthermore if you've seen Jesus then you've seen the Father... Oh boy, we're getting confusing now.

To clarify, the NASB renders John 1:18 as follows, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." I then don't understand where you are seeing the change 'bosom of the Father' to 'close to the Father'? The think the only issue here is the one you're creating. Jesus is God, right? I don't see the theological implication in calling him 'only begotten God' as opposed to 'only begotten Son'?

Xel'Naga

I hope I haven't mis-stated, saying that the NASB has along side of in John 1:18, which it doesn't.

IMO it has helped lead to placing Jesus alongside of the Father by changing the Greek prepositions en & ek, from on or in to at in regards to Jesus location in or on the right hand of God.

The NASB translated these two Greek words all nineteen times as at. While at may fit within the parameters of on or in, it also allows for the interpretation of along side of, which is what the newer translations have done.

Along side of, does not fit within the parameters of on or in.

Either Jesus's abode is the right hand of God, or it is ouside, or along side of.

The one places both The Father and the Son within the abode, and the other one separates them, with Jesus standing alongside of the Father.

I see this as a doctrinal position.

Peace in Jesus Christ, Terrell

rom826
Apr 21st 2009, 12:59 AM
Or what happens when you start messing with translations

In 1901 the English Text in John 1:18 read--

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/john/1.htm)
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

What has the Critical Text supporters changed?

1. They changed Son to God.
2. They changed begotten to only or unique.
3. They changed in the bosom to close to the Father’s side.
4. They changed declared to explained.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
What happens when you start changing things, it creates problems for the translators.
When you change Son to God, and begotten to only, and in the bosom to close to the Father------------

You end up with the Only God standing close to the Father.

The Father is no longer God because he is standing close to the only God.
This then creates verbal gymnastics for the translators. One of the things they tried was changing only to unique.
You then end up with the unique God standing close to the Father.

Now try explaining this one. If Jesus is the unique God, is the Father not unique? Or do we have two unique God’s? Or is the Father not God?

Do the new translations create problems of doctrine? Definitely!
Why does most of the changes relate to the doctrine of Christ?
__________________________________________________ _____________________
What about changing declared to explained? They mean the same thing don’t they?
No they don’t mean the same thing. Explained has the connotation of speech, either written or verbal, and will not be found anywhere else in the Bible explaining the full content of its meaning. For examples, some verses with declare in them explain a fuller meaning, for the Bible exhorts us to compare scripture with scripture.

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/psalms/19.htm) (Psalm 19:1)
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork.

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/psalms/30.htm) (Psalm 30:9)
What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth?

American King James Version (http://kjv.us/2_corinthians/3.htm) (2 Cor. 3:3)
For as much as you are manifestly declared to be the letter of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

The definition of the Greek word exēgeomai which is translated explained in the NASB follows.
__________________________________________________ ______________________



Transliteration






exēgeomai



Pronunciation
eks-ā-ge'-o-mī (Key) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1834&t=KJV)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
from G1537 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1537&t=KJV) and G2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2233&t=KJV)
TDNT Reference



2:908,303 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1834&t=KJV)



Vines



View Entry (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1834&t=KJV)



Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to lead out, be leader, go before
2) metaph., to draw out in narrative, unfold a teaching
a) to recount, rehearse
b) to unfold, declare
1) the things relating to God
2) used in Greek writing of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc.


Since the word explained in the NASB is found only 7 times total in the Old Testament compared with the ASB which uses the word declare, that is found 127 times in the Old Testament, which translation, the ASB or the NASB, forms a bonding and unity of words that makes compatible the various books of the Bible?

American Standard Version (http://asvbible.com/john/1.htm)
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

NASB (John 1:18) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NIV (John 1:18) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

International Standard Version (http://isv.scripturetext.com/john/1.htm) (©2008) (http://isv.org/)
No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

Why has this happened? Doesn’t anyone care?

Terrell

The KJV is also a translation that has been messed with.

tgallison
Apr 21st 2009, 01:20 AM
The KJV is also a translation that has been messed with.

I was hoping this wouldn't degrade to my translation is better than your translation.

This is about a doctrinal change that is not supported by the Greek or Hebrew.

Sorry that I have offended you.

Terrell

RabbiKnife
Apr 21st 2009, 01:38 AM
1. God is spirit. He is omnipresent. He doesn't have arms. He doesn't have hands. He doesn't have a "hinder parts." There is nowhere that he is not and he is everywhere. He can't be in his own lap or beside himself.

2. Jesus has a body. Still does. Always will.

3. Jesus is God.

4. God the Father is God.

5. The use of anthropomorphic devices , -- "at the right hand of the Father," "in the bosom of God", etc. is not literal but merely a literary device to try to give us an idea of relationship, authority, etc.


There is no conflict in the two "versions" you have referenced. Either transaltion makes perfectly good sense in the light of the rest of scripture.

tgallison
Apr 21st 2009, 02:00 AM
[quote=RabbiKnife;2050052]1. God is spirit. He is omnipresent. He doesn't have arms. He doesn't have hands. He doesn't have a "hinder parts." There is nowhere that he is not and he is everywhere. He can't be in his own lap or beside himself.

When you say God is a spirit, are you eliminating Jesus from this statement?


2. Jesus has a body. Still does. Always will.

Did Jesus have a body when he created the heaven and the earth?


3. Jesus is God.

Agreed


4. God the Father is God.

Agreed


5. The use of anthropomorphic devices , -- "at the right hand of the Father," "in the bosom of God", etc. is not literal but merely a literary device to try to give us an idea of relationship, authority, etc.

Agreed that it is figurative in that it is a physical picture of the spiritual reality.



There is no conflict in the two "versions" you have referenced. Either transaltion makes perfectly good sense in the light of the rest of scripture.

Disagree. If the one places Jesus within the Father in the spiritual reality, and the other places Jesus outside the Father in the spiritual reality, then there is a difference, that should be obvious to all.

Grace and peace, Terrell

RabbiKnife
Apr 21st 2009, 02:11 AM
There is no indication that Jesus had a body pre-incarnation; however, the very concept of incarnation would tend to mitigate against it.

Jesus is also a spirit; however, at least since the incarnation, he has limited himself to a physical body -- granted a glorified body since the resurrection without changing what it means to be spirit.

I am also a spirit; however, I have always been limited to a physical body.

I don't understand where you are going with this, unless you are trying to disprove the concept of the Trinitarian Godhead or seeking to prove some form of modalism.

We know that God the Father,at all times, is deity.
We know that Jesus Christ, at all times, is deity.
We know that the Holy Spirit, at all times, is deity.

There is no question that the three are one in essence.
There is likewise no question that the three are three separate, distinct, and individual persons.
There is likewise no question that the three are in perfect unity.

So, whether the passage means that Jesus is in the role of authority and close companionship of the Father, or whether the passage means that Jesus is the unique God (as John 1 does), there is no problem with either translation.

Even the best "physical representations" fail to accurately describe "spiritual reality."

tgallison
Apr 21st 2009, 03:40 AM
[quote=RabbiKnife;2050096]There is no indication that Jesus had a body pre-incarnation; however, the very concept of incarnation would tend to mitigate against it.

Agreed


Jesus is also a spirit; however, at least since the incarnation, he has limited himself to a physical body -- granted a glorified body since the resurrection without changing what it means to be spirit. I don't know that limited is the correct word. We are the body of Christ and we are still here. So I do not know if Jesus has another body in the Majesty on High.


I am also a spirit; however, I have always been limited to a physical body.Me too.


I don't understand where you are going with this, unless you are trying to disprove the concept of the Trinitarian GodheadYou know, I really don't know what the Trintarian concept is. I spend most of my time in the Bible.


or seeking to prove some form of modalism.I can say no to this.


We know that God the Father,at all times, is deity.
We know that Jesus Christ, at all times, is deity.
We know that the Holy Spirit, at all times, is deity.It is nice to agree.


There is no question that the three are one in essence.Definitely.


There is likewise no question that the three are three separate, distinct, and individual persons.Personality characteristics yes. Do not like the word individual persons, as it relates to Tom, Dick, and Harry.

The relationship is beyond our comprehension. When Jesus says, That He and the Father our one, as found in John 10:30, I believe him. When He says, to see me is to see the Father, I believe Him. Do I fully understand it? No, but some day He will explain it to me.


There is likewise no question that the three are in perfect unity.One of the best agreements we have had.


So, whether the passage means that Jesus is in the role of authority and close companionship of the Father, or whether the passage means that Jesus is the unique God (as John 1 does),Cannot agree with this statement. Though they have separate personalities they appear to have an integral relationship, beyond our comprehension, else how can Jesus say, I and my Father are one, and to see me is to see my Father.


there is no problem with either translation.No matter what else we disagree on, you should be able to see the movement from within to along side of.

in (eis) ---is in the NASB, but is not in the Newer translations. In the bosom does not become alongside the bosom unless you ignore the Greek that everyone touts.


Even the best "physical representations" fail to accurately describe "spiritual reality.End with a pleasant note.

Peace and joy in Christ, Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 21st 2009, 04:43 AM
IMO it has helped lead to placing Jesus alongside of the Father by changing the Greek prepositions en & ek, from on or in to at in regards to Jesus location in or on the right hand of God.Terrell, you are doing it again. Neither ἐν nor ἐκ are used in John 1:18. The Greek word is εἰς (which you correctly state in the post right above this one -- why you stated otherwise previously I don't understand).

Alright, back to the OP.
What has the Critical Text supporters changed?

1. They changed Son to God.
2. They changed begotten to only or unique.
3. They changed in the bosom to close to the Father’s side.
4. They changed declared to explained.First of all, let's talk differences in the Greek. The difference between the TR and the CT is minimal.

θεονουδειςεωρακενπωποτεομονογενηςυιοςοωνειςτονκολπ οντουπατροςεκεινοςεξηγησατο (TR)
Θεὸνοὐδεὶςἑώρακενπώποτε·μονογενὴςθεὸςὁὢνεἰςτὸνκόλπ οντοῦπατρὸςἐκεῖνοςἐξηγήσατο. (NA27)

So, the only differences are a definite article (ο) and whether the text says son (υιος) or god (θεὸς).

In regard to the definite article, I see no point to bother expounding on this. The Greek of the TR has four definite articles and the KJV itself only includes three as do most, if not all modern versions.

Terrell's Point #1

Now does the text say "son" or "god". You claim this is a change. This is your #1 point.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are united on this. They both have god. But besides them, p66 and p75 also have god. P66 is from 200 A.D. or earlier. P75 is dated somewhere between 175 - 225 A.D.

When you get Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in agreement, that's strong evidence. When you throw in a papyri (or in this case two!), it's basically a slam dunk.

Papyri are the most important manuscript witnesses. The only papryri of John 1 they have found support the modern versions.

Uncials are next in importance. "Son" has a handful of uncial support. The strongest support it has is Codex Alexandrinus. But with no other Greek support prior to the 9th century, that's not too convincing.

Terrell's Point #2

Your point to is that they changed "begotten" to "unqiue". That's not stated as accurately as it should be. I would say they corrected "begotten" to "unique".

"Only begotten" in Greek would be μονογέννητος. However, John uses μονογενής. So unique is the correct translation. The KJV (and others) mistranslated this.

I've addressed this point to you twice in the last month and both times you did not address this but just restated your point in newer threads (which is circular reasoning on your part). Are you going to accept this fact, or will you just restate your view in another new thread?

Terrell's Point #3 & 4

In regard to these, I think you are making much about nothing as others have stated.

Bosom or side . . . Share your knowledge of the word κόλπον and why it must be one over the other and how this affects anything in any significant way.

In regard to εἰς, before you rip modern versions, you might want to look at how the KJV handles this word in other situations. The KJV translators translated it as at many times. Why don't you share the details about why this should be in instead of at.

In regard to the word εξηγησατο, explained and declared aren't really that different. You wrote . . .
No they don’t mean the same thing. Explained has the connotation of speech, either written or verbal, and will not be found anywhere else in the Bible explaining the full content of its meaning. For examples, some verses with declare in them explain a fuller meaning, for the Bible exhorts us to compare scripture with scripture.Doesn't declared have the connotation of speech, either written or verbal also? You seem to really be trying to stretch to build your case against modern versions.

You asked some people if they are interested in facts. I'm asking you the same thing. The facts obliterate your points 1 & 2. There is no doubt the modern versions are much more accurate than the KJV and other older versions on those points. And points 3 & 4 are real stretches by you in your war on the modern versions.

Are you interested in facts, Terrell? Are you interested in the right answers, or the right kind of answers? When you ignore my comments on μονογενής in two other threads and other arguments I make, I'm left thinking you only want the right kind of answers -- the kind that support the KJV.

I hope I'm wrong. Prove me wrong. Don't state in another thread on another day that μονογενής means "only begotten" and that modern translators have "changed" this. Accept the fact that this word means unique. Greek has four very early witnesses that John 1:18 says God and not son. With the only manuscript before the 9th century supporting son being Codex Alexandrinus, the evidence for son is very weak. If I see in another thread that you defend the KJV rendering of John 1:18 and not the modern renderings, then I'll know for a fact that you aren't interested in facts.

Please drop the war on modern translations. This is completely unedifying and the more you talk about Greek words that are "in" or "not in" different Greek texts, when the opposite is true, the more it appears that you aren't interested in facts, but just proving your point of view. This is the second time in a week or so you made a mistake in your claim of words in Greek texts. You did it with prepositions in John 1:18 in this thread and you did it with Acts 7:55 in your previous thread. Please give up your war on modern translations. Read the KJV. Enjoy it. Let others enjoy the NASB or whatever version they choose without trying to prove these are corrupted when in fact they are not.

Grace & peace to you, Terrell.

Joe

tgallison
Apr 21st 2009, 01:24 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2050232]Terrell, you are doing it again. Neither ἐν nor ἐκ are used in John 1:18. The Greek word is εἰς (which you correctly state in the post right above this one -- why you stated otherwise previously I don't understand).

Greetings Joe

Expected to see you.

Never said en and ek were in John 1:18. Please don't misquote me. What does the scripture tell us to do? Compare scripture with scripture, and that is what I was doing.

ASV And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:5)

Jesus had glory with the Father before the world began. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that this glory was diminished until He was manifested as the Son of man.

ESV who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; (Philippians 2:6-7)

While Jesus was in the Majesty on High He was glorified as the right hand & arms of God, as implied by that term He was the power of God which was given to him by the Father. That is why He is revealed as the arm of God in Isaiah 53:1

NASB Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? (Isaiah 53:1)

So we have the Glorified son of God, or arm of God, meaning the power of God, coming down to man from on High, leaving some of that power on High with the Father, for he was made a little lower than the angels, being revealed.

Isaiah 53:1 describes the one being revealed as the arm of God, or power of God, for that is what the right hand and arms of God depicts.

In a prior thread called This is a test I presented from scripture how Jesus was described as the right hand and arms of God by presenting more than 50 verses that reveal this. It will be posted here so you can read it.

When Jesus was resurrected, he returned to His rightful position on High as the right hand & arm of God, or power if you will of God. This is described as Jesus being positioned on the right hand of God nineteen times in the New Testament. He is abiding as the power of God.

In the nineteen times it is recorded in the New Testament, the Greek prepositions en and ek were used some 3,721 times The preponderance of times they are used in the New testament en is translated in and ek is translated from or out from.

In the nineteen verses relating to Jesus being set back in power and in Glory, as the right hand of God the prepositions en and ek are translated on 12 times and at seven times by the ASV. In contrast the NASB translated those same Greek prepositions as at all 19 times.

What difference does it matter. At can mean on or in, but on or in cannot mean at. Example.

I am in the path of righteousness.

I am on the path of righteousness.

I am at the path of righteousness.
Read the following presentation and see if you can say Jesus is the right hand and arm of God.

IS JESUS THE RIGHT HAND AND ARM OF GOD?

The following is not a complete number, only approximately. The actual number will be greater, but not less than.

15 times in scripture the hand and arm of God are found together.

20 times the right hand of God is found.

33 times the arm of God is found in scripture.

17 times the hand or arm of God is outstretched.

52 separate times either the hand of God or the arm of God or both are found in scripture.

12 times it specifically refers to salvation.

10 different Books in the Old Testament, the hand and arm of God are found.

Below are some of the attributes of the hand and arm of God.

1. Saves

2. Rules

3. Judges

4. Holds

5. Distributes righteousness

6. Reaps

7. Gathers the sheep

8. Brings light

9. Is Glorious

10. Is Holy

11. Creates

12. Redeems

13. Plants vineyards

14. Purchases (Sanctuary)

15. Obtains victory

16. Shows mercy

17. Is trustworthy

18. Feeds the flock

19. Intercessor

20. Brings the Word

Can you picture the outstretched hand and arm of God which is his Son, reaching out through the Son of man to all mankind?

Jesus is the intercessor directly connected to the Father and directly connected to man.

Jesus is the creator, He is the light, He obtains victory, He feeds the flock, He shows mercy, He saves, He rules, He judges, He holds, He distributes righteousness, He gathers the sheep, He is glorious, He is Holy, He shows mercy, He is the sword, He is the living Word, for He is all things, for all things were made by Him and for Him, for it pleased the Father that it might be so.

Exodus 6:6, 15:6,16----Deuteronomy 4:34, 5:15, 7:19, 9:29, 26:8, 33:2----1 Kings 8:42,----2 Kings 17:36----2 Chronicles 6:32----Job 40:9,14----Psalm 17:7, 18:35, 20:6, 21:8, 44:3, 48:10, 60:5, 74:11, 77:15, 78:42, 78:54, 80:15,17, 89:13,15, 95:7, 98:1, 110:1, 118:15-16, 136:12, 139:10, Proverbs 1:24, Isaiah 30:30, 33:2, 40:10,11, 41:10,20, 48:13, 51:5,9, 52:10, 53:1, 59:1,16, 62:8, 63:5,12. Jeremiah 21:5, 27:5, 32:17,21, Ezekiel 20:33,34.

It is impossible to reply to all your statements at one time. It quite smothers the thread when you come in and post so much at one time.

Peace and truth in Christ, Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 21st 2009, 03:43 PM
Never said en and ek were in John 1:18. Please don't misquote me. What does the scripture tell us to do? Compare scripture with scripture, and that is what I was doing.I re-posted your quote using the forum's quoting system and I expanded the quote with more context. Look at your quote again . . .
I hope I haven't mis-stated, saying that the NASB has along side of in John 1:18, which it doesn't.

IMO it has helped lead to placing Jesus alongside of the Father by changing the Greek prepositions en & ek, from on or in to at in regards to Jesus location in or on the right hand of God.I apologize for misinterpreting you, however, if that quote isn't talking about John 1:18 (as this is what the thread is about anyway), you aren't very clear at that point. You stated it has helped lead to placing Jesus alongside of the Father by changing the Greek prepositions en & ek, from on or in to at in regards to Jesus location in or on the right hand of God. Look at the first word . . . it. What is it referring to? It appears to reference John 1:18 in your previous sentence. Again, I'm sorry misinterpreting you, but what other interpretation could I get from those two sentences?

Most of the rest of your reply to me gets back to this Jesus being the right arm of God idea. What in the world does this have to do with John 1:18?

I read your entire test thread and everyone's reply. I agree with many replies to you. I think your taking anthropomorphic language and reading too much into it.

I think you could equate Jesus with the arm of God in Isaiah 53:1 (which doesn't state right nor left). In general, I see arm as indicating God's power. I don't think every reference to the arm of God or right arm or hand of God is a reference to Jesus.

As I review the test thread and see your comparison of versions on 19 verses talking about the "right hand of God" in the NT, let's briefly talk about ἐν and ἐκ. Terrell, the KJV translates ἐν as the word at many, many times. Unless you have a very good command of Greek, how can you determine that the KJV has the best rendering in these verses about the right hand of God? Save yourself the typing. I don't see how you can put together a convincing case against hundreds of Greek scholars who differ with you.

Can you point to an author that supports this view your pushing about all theses references to God's right hand or arm all being references to Jesus? It would help your case if you could point to a reputable work that support your view. If your the first person in two millennia to come up with this, then that also makes it hard to take the view seriously.

What's really concerning about all this is the number of people you've got wondering now about what your view of the Trinity is. How one understands the trinity is much more important than what version one carries around with them. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV and many others all teach the same thing about the Trinity.

But hey, if I wanted to talk about that so much, I would have replied to your test thread. Let's get back to John 1:18.
It is impossible to reply to all your statements at one time. It quite smothers the thread when you come in and post so much at one time.I really didn't say all that much.

I'll simplify.

Points 3 & 4 I don't see any life changing difference between a KJV or NASB or other reputable translations. I agree with Pilgrimtozion and Xel'Nega on those two point. Use the KJV or whatever you want. Others can use the NASB or whatever they want.

Point #1 you claim that Son was changed to God. The Greek evidence is heavily in favor of new versions. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agree. Along with them, p66 and p75 agree and both of those are significantly older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The oldest support for the KJV rendering is Codex Alexandrinus which is 5th century then we have to skip to the 9th century for more Greek support. This is a slam dunk for god over son.

Point #2 I've addressed three times in three posts to you just within the last few weeks. "Only begotten" in Greek would be μονογέννητος. However, John uses μονογενής. So unique is the correct translation. The KJV (and others) mistranslated this. You didn't address this in the other two threads. Here's a third opportunity. You can accept the fact or start another new thread to reassert your view that this is a change rather than an improvement by correction.

Again, there are the facts on points 1 & 2. Are you interested in facts? Are you interested in the right answers or just the right kind of answers, i.e. answers that support the KJV and cast aspersion on modern versions.

Again, I ask you to drop your war on modern versions. There are much more important things to discuss.

Grace & peace to you, Terrell.

Joe

tgallison
Apr 21st 2009, 05:21 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2050581]. I apologize for misinterpreting you, however, if that quote isn't talking about John 1:18 (as this is what the thread is about anyway), you aren't very clear at that point. You stated it has helped lead to placing Jesus alongside of the Father by changing the Greek prepositions en & ek, from on or in to at in regards to Jesus location in or on the right hand of God.

I apologize for misleading you it was not the intent. I get in trouble a lot by assuming we are all on the same page. The thread "This is a test" was a precursor for this thread, and if one follows it, it will more adequately explain this thread.


Most of the rest of your reply to me gets back to this Jesus being the right arm of God idea. What in the world does this have to do with John 1:18?It has everything to do with the location of Christ. If the right hand and arm of God represents power, and Jesus Christ is on or in the right hand of the majesty on High, then all those verses that were presented for Jesus being the right hand and arm of God, relate to John 1:18.

ASV And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. (Matt. 28:18) Some translations use power in place of authority, either way it applies.

Whether you say Jesus is in(en) the right hand or in(eis) the bosom of the father, they both relate to the position of Jesus, which is the power and authority of the Father. Placing Jesus along side of the Father is a variant from what one can assume the scripture is saying, in light of what all the older English translations are saying as well as what the Greek is saying.

We are encouraged by the scripture to compare scripture with scripture, that is reason you see so much scripture in this thread.

IMO the new translations are stretching beyond the limits, the Greek, in order to promote a view that is contrary to previous views.


I think you could equate Jesus with the arm of God in Isaiah 53:1 (which doesn't state right nor left). In general, I see arm as indicating God's power. I don't think every reference to the arm of God or right arm or hand of God is a reference to Jesus.Why not, if all authority and power were given to Him by the Father to the extent that all creation is for him and by him?


As I review the test thread and see your comparison of versions on 19 verses talking about the "right hand of God" in the NT, let's briefly talk about ἐν and ἐκ. Terrell, the KJV translates ἐν as the word at many, many times. Unless you have a very good command of Greek, how can you determine that the KJV has the best rendering in these verses about the right hand of God? Save yourself the typing. I don't see how you can put together a convincing case against hundreds of Greek scholars who differ with you.Joe you should be well aware that the KJV translates en as in 1,902 times, versus translating it as at 113 times. You should also know the Greek meaning for en is for a fixed position that is at rest, whereas the Greek word ek means an abode that is active. I find this a very weak position on your part in light of the fact that the NASB changed on to at 12 times in relation to the ASV in regards to the right hand of God.

Best regards, Terrell

tgallison
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:07 AM
[quote=TrustGzus;2050581]I think you could equate Jesus with the arm of God in Isaiah 53:1 (which doesn't state right nor left). In general, I see arm as indicating God's power. I don't think every reference to the arm of God or right arm or hand of God is a reference to Jesus.

The answer whether Jesus is the right and arm of God is answered in your statement-"I see arm as indicating God's power."

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)

Best regards, Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:48 AM
I apologize for misleading you it was not the intent. I get in trouble a lot by assuming we are all on the same page.I do that too sometimes.
It has everything to do with the location of Christ. If the right hand and arm of God represents power, and Jesus Christ is on or in the right hand of the majesty on High, then all those verses that were presented for Jesus being the right hand and arm of God, relate to John 1:18.

ASV And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. (Matt. 28:18) Some translations use power in place of authority, either way it applies.

Whether you say Jesus is in(en) the right hand or in(eis) the bosom of the father, they both relate to the position of Jesus, which is the power and authority of the Father. Placing Jesus along side of the Father is a variant from what one can assume the scripture is saying, in light of what all the older English translations are saying as well as what the Greek is saying.Terrell, on what basis can you say that hundreds of conservative, Bible-believing scholars are wrong? You are not providing sources. So all you have is your own authority in your posts. You are quoting older English versions. But on what basis do you declare them more accurate? Am I to take your commentary employing older English versions as more authoritative than hundreds of current, living Greek scholars?

I hope you see the difficulty.
We are encouraged by the scripture to compare scripture with scripture, that is reason you see so much scripture in this thread.But Terrell, when you give me a verse, here's what I do, I read a couple paragraphs around the individual verse. A lot of your points are made by comparing one verse in this book to another single verse in that book, etc. If the context, doesn't support the interpreatation you or someone puts on a verse, then comparing other verses to a misinterpretation of the first verse doesn't prove anything.

As I read the context of many these arm passages, I don't see it always being a direct claim about Jesus.
IMO the new translations are stretching beyond the limits, the Greek, in order to promote a view that is contrary to previous views.Previous views held by whom? Where are these previous views? Last post I mentioned that it would be good for you to provide some historical reference(s) to demonstrate this isn't a new idea by you. Provide some.

When those in the forum who think God's preserved word is found in the KJV by quoting Psalm 12:6-7, I often quote Matthew Henry who died before the current versions. He died before Westcott & Hort were even born. All he really had was the KJV. He had no Sinaiticus. No Vaticanus. No p66. No p75.

How does he deal with Jesus in relation to the Father and the right hand? Does he use at? As a matter of fact he does. All emphases in the following quotes are from me.

In 1 Peter 3:22 of the KJV, Jesus is described as being on the right hand of the Father.
The apostle, having mentioned the death and resurrection of Christ, proceeds to speak of his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, as a subject fit to be considered by these believers for their comfort in their suffering condition, v. 22.
Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (1 Pe 3:21). Peabody: Hendrickson.Hebrews 10:12 of the KJV has Jesus on the right hand of God. Here's what Matthew Henry states . . .
From the place to which our Lord Jesus is now exalted, the honour he has there, and the further honour he shall have: This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down at the right hand of God, henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool, v. 12, 13.
Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Heb 10:7). Peabody: Hendrickson.


Hebrews 1:3 in the KJV has Jesus on the right hand of God. Here's Matthew Henry . . .
From the glory of his sufferings we are at length led to consider the glory of his exaltation: When by himself he had purged away our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, at his Father’s right hand.

Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Heb 1:1). Peabody: Hendrickson.Matthew Henry says the same thing in John, Romans, Colossians, 2 Timothy and on and on. He has Jesus at the right hand.

Again, no modern versions could influence him. In fact, the 1769 KJV that we have wasn't even released yet as he died long before that.

I own Charles Hodge's 3-volume Systematic Theology. He died in 1878 . . . three years before the RV was released. He regularly describes Jesus as at the right hand of God. In fact, in volume 2, page 635, he even has a header labeled Sitting at the right hand of God.

I have a sermon book by John Wesley. He died 1791. Again, long before modern versions. Long before Westcott or Hort were born. He uses the phrase at the right hand of God many times.

So, this isn't a new idea. When you mention "previous view", I have to ask where you get that from since I find many writers that predate modern versions and just had the KJV and the original languages to work with yet had a theology like the modern scholars.

Lastly, even the KJV supports the idea. Look at Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 12:2 . . .
Romans 8:34 . . . Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Hebrews 12:2 . . . Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
The Holy Bible : King James Version.Both times the Greek word is ἐν. Who influenced the KJV translators to translate it this way? How can you cast blame on modern translators for translating the words consistently in similar contexts when the KJV translators used three different English words in the context of being at the right hand (sometimes on, sometimes in, sometimes at)?

I don't know, Terrell. I think you're making a big deal out of little and it doesn't look to me like history is on your side.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

tgallison
Apr 22nd 2009, 01:07 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2051264]

Joe greetings

You are skirmishing the peripheral without addressing the heart of what I have presented.

You said the arm meant power in your opinion and didn't have to relate to Jesus. So I presented a verse that all power is given unto Jesus, showing that he is the power, and therefore the arm. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matt. 28:18)

And what do you do? You reply with a long dialogue, in regards to in and at, which is the peripheral, and not the heart of what I am presenting. You are also saying what right do I have to disagree with the elite.

The heart of the matter is the NASB removed on or in from its vocabulary in relation to the right hand of God, opening up the door for the NIV and other translations to move Jesus even farther away from the Father, which directly relates to doctrine.

ASVthat they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

The best look at how these things work is what a translator of the 1881 Text said.

Dr. George Vance Smith--
"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).
"The old reading [God in 1 Tim. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as `God manifested in the flesh'" (Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39).

This is an example of changing at to in instead of in to at. Yet it does the same thing in effect, it changes doctrine.

One thing should be noted. That both the ASV and the ESV made Vance's change.

ASV that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,

ERV that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,

For those that don't think they are messing with the Bible you need to look at this.

After Dr. George Vance Smith made known his feelings the translators of the translations that followed had to go back and change in to at.

Best regards, Terrell

RabbiKnife
Apr 22nd 2009, 01:56 PM
I still don't see what this means...

Do you seriously believe that any translation since the KJV or ASV intentionally or negligently attempts to make Jesus anything less that God Himself, the second person of the Trinity?

Talk about swallowing camels and straining at gnats.

The NIV has nothing to do with the NASB...each new translation committee takes the best manuscripts and starts from there....they don't start with a previous translation...

I don't understand the hang up on the anthropomorphic language. I really don't.

TrustGzus
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:12 PM
You are skirmishing the peripheral without addressing the heart of what I have presented.Sorry, Terrell. I'm not trying to avoid anything and I'm trying to address everything.
You said the arm meant power in your opinion and didn't have to relate to Jesus. So I presented a verse that all power is given unto Jesus, showing that he is the power, and therefore the arm. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matt. 28:18) There is a difference between saying all power (or authority) was given to Jesus and that Jesus is the power and arm of God. Again, I've said this a couple times now, context of the individual passage is more important than cross-referencing single isolated verses from one book of the Bible with another.

If the context of one verse about the arm doesn't indicate that the arm is Jesus, then I don't think a cross reference with Jesus' words in Matthew 28 is legitiimate interpretation. Comparing Scripture with Scripture is important. But as I said earlier, interpreting a verse in its own context is more important than yanking a verse out of Matthew 28 to intepret every verse about the arm.
You are also saying what right do I have to disagree with the elite.I said that in regard to your hard stand on at versus in and on. Terrell, you don't really know Greek. You are quoting no one else to back up your view.

So here's what I have . . . a single voice in a forum, with no sources being quoted to support his view, who doesn't know the origingal languages going against hundreds of scholars, i.e. experts, on the subject.

Hundreds of educated experts against a lone uneducated voice on the subject (who isn't providing documentation).

So yes, I'm saying you disagree with the elite and this is not an improper move on my part. You are speaking in an area in which the trained experts disagree with you. What reason is there for me to accept your view? That plus, I think your interpretive method is faulty. You rely too much on cross-referencing individual verses rather than finding out what the context of individual verse states.
The heart of the matter is the NASB removed on or in from its vocabulary in relation to the right hand of God, opening up the door for the NIV and other translations to move Jesus even farther away from the Father, which directly relates to doctrine.Actually, the RSV beat the NASB to it. However, as I pointed out last time, the KJV did the same thing in Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 12:2.

Well, if Jesus is at the right hand in the KJV, then that's not the same thing as being the right hand is it? Frankly Terrell, when the KJV has Jesus on the right hand, I don't think that helps your point either. If he's on the right hand, then he is not the hand or arm, he's on it. And remember, I'm quoting KJV here, not a modern version.

Terrell, the modern translations are just more consistent in how they translate. The KJV is all over the board on this. The KJV translators have Jesus on the right hand at the right hand.
ASVthat they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.Okay, now read an entire paragraph around that verse and tell me what that means, Terrell. Interpret that in its context.
The best look at how these things work is what a translator of the 1881 Text said.

Dr. George Vance Smith--
"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).
"The old reading [God in 1 Tim. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as `God manifested in the flesh'" (Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39).You sure love that quote.

Two problems:

First problem. Last post I quoted Matthew Henry for you. I quoted John Wesley. Both died in the 1700's. They were not influenced by modern versions. I quoted Charles Hodge. He died in 1878 . . . 3 years before the new version came out.

Second, in regard to 1 Timothy 3:16, no one on the counsel of 1881 created a new idea by "changing" God to he. The difference is between what the word was the letters theta and sigma (which was be God) or omicron and signa (which would be he). The difference between omicron and theta is that both look like a letter "o" but theta has a line going across in the middle. This is easy to see how a copyist could make an error. And the problem pre-dates George Vance by many centuries. We have some manuscripts that say one, some say another. The evidence is clear that the older manuscripts have omicron-sigma, i.e. he not God.

How did God ever get in any of the readings? It's a simple mistake by a copyist. It could have been a crease in the vellum that made omicron look like a theta.

Now let me point out that I fully believe in the deity of Jesus. If the manuscript evidence supported God in 1 Timothy 3:16, I'd gladly take that reading. We could line up dozens of Greek scholars that hold to Jesus' deity 100%, but think the original here is he, not God. Why? Because of George Vance? Not at all. George Vance isn't a blip on the radar. It's because of the manuscript evidence.
This is an example of changing at to in instead of in to at. Yet it does the same thing in effect, it changes doctrine.

One thing should be noted. That both the ASV and the ESV made Vance's change.

ASV that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,

ERV that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,

For those that don't think they are messing with the Bible you need to look at this.

After Dr. George Vance Smith made known his feelings the translators of the translations that followed had to go back and change in to at.

Best regards, TerrellTerrell, no doctrine is changed. Again, Matthew Henry, who only had the KJV, renders this "at the name". George Vance had no influence on a man that died in 1714.

Terrell, address my points. I've given you verses from the KJV to address (Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 12:2). I've given you men that died before any modern translations were in play that deal with the preposisitons and translate them the way modern versions do. I've given you my thoughts that I think it is more important to intepret verses in context, then to take a single verse from Matthew out of its context and intepret and bunch of other single verses out of their context.

Don't say I write a post that is too long and accuse me of dodging your point. If I miss your point, I apologize. However, you've used the "long post" comment a couple times now and haven't addressed my points.

Don't say I'm attacking your character. No, I'm attacking your case. Counter my points.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

The Parson
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:32 PM
I guess I'm still at the point where I see ya'll comparing apples for oranges. With me, I still distrust the source of the "New Translations"! Not trying to make your points mute friends even though I'd love to take part in the discussion. Gee I hate it when that happens.

IMINXTC
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:13 PM
I share your distrust...completely. Especially when those sources invariably involve Codex Vaticanus and the celebrated trash-bin Codex Sinaiticus, just for openers.

There must have been tremendous motive behind Rome's burning of Europe's vast collection of manuscripts during the post reformation, not to mention martyrs at the stake.

Do all roads really lead to Rome?

Emanate
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:14 PM
"Only the KJV will keep you from error in doctrine" said one Mormon to the other.

The Parson
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:28 PM
"Only the KJV will keep you from error in doctrine" said one Mormon to the other.Might want to explain this statement please.

Emanate
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:35 PM
Might want to explain this statement please.


Mormonism uses the KJV ONLY. So did Jehovah's Witnesses until the 1940s

The Parson
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:38 PM
Mormonism uses the KJV ONLY. So did Jehovah's Witnesses until the 1940sSo that would make it a bad thingey? As a Missionary Baptist, I am a KJ only man. Would that make me in the same category?

Emanate
Apr 22nd 2009, 08:26 PM
So that would make it a bad thingey? As a Missionary Baptist, I am a KJ only man. Would that make me in the same category?


No, my point being that using the KJV only does not keep you from error. I myself prefer the KJV

TrustGzus
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:16 AM
I share your distrust...completely. Especially when those sources invariably involve Codex Vaticanus and the celebrated trash-bin Codex Sinaiticus, just for openers.

There must have been tremendous motive behind Rome's burning of Europe's vast collection of manuscripts during the post reformation, not to mention martyrs at the stake.

Do all roads really lead to Rome?Might want to double-check your history. The manuscript that was being burned was on Constantine Von Tischendorf's first visit in 1844. That manuscript is known as Codex Frederico-Augustanus and consisted of 43 parchment leaves. It is stored at the University Library at Leipzig, Germany.

Tischendorf found out about Sinaiticus on his third visit just before he departed on February 4th, 1859. Tischendorf showed the steward a copy of the Septuagint. The steward said he had a copy of the Septuagint also and produced from his closet Codex Sinaiticus which he had wrapped in a red cloth.

I don't know if this has any impact on your view about Sinaiticus. If your distrust is on the fact that it was in the trash bin, then know that the information that was given to you is inaccurate. Might want to double-check your source. Again, the "trash bin" manuscript is Codex Frederico-Augustanas. If your ever in Leipzig, you can go see that. If you get to visit the British Museum, you can see Codex Sinaiticus which was taken care of very well at St. Catherine's.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:20 AM
Just a little more about Codex Frederico-Augustanus that I left out . . . the 43 leaves only contained portions of the Septuagint. All it had was Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Esther. That's the trash bin manuscript.

tgallison
Apr 23rd 2009, 04:49 AM
Might want to double-check your history. The manuscript that was being burned was on Constantine Von Tischendorf's first visit in 1844. That manuscript is known as Codex Frederico-Augustanus and consisted of 43 parchment leaves. It is stored at the University Library at Leipzig, Germany.

Tischendorf found out about Sinaiticus on his third visit just before he departed on February 4th, 1859. Tischendorf showed the steward a copy of the Septuagint. The steward said he had a copy of the Septuagint also and produced from his closet Codex Sinaiticus which he had wrapped in a red cloth.

I don't know if this has any impact on your view about Sinaiticus. If your distrust is on the fact that it was in the trash bin, then know that the information that was given to you is inaccurate. Might want to double-check your source. Again, the "trash bin" manuscript is Codex Frederico-Augustanas. If your ever in Leipzig, you can go see that. If you get to visit the British Museum, you can see Codex Sinaiticus which was taken care of very well at St. Catherine's.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Joe greetings evidently you haven't studied up much on Constantin von Tischendorf.

Here is an extract from Tischendorf's speech on the Sinaiticus that he made at a Conference of the Evangelical Church of Germany, held at Altenburg, in the month of September, 1864.

"--And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying , he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete,--" (New York: American Tract Society, 1866).

In the same speech Tischendorf mentions the Sinaitic fragments which he named Codex Frederick Augustus, after the King of Saxony.

Grace and peace, Terrell

tgallison
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:28 PM
Just a little more about Codex Frederico-Augustanus that I left out . . . the 43 leaves only contained portions of the Septuagint. All it had was Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Esther. That's the trash bin manuscript.

Joe greetings

Do you not realize that those 43 leaves that were Named Codex Frederico Augustanus were the Old Testament(Septuagint) portion of the Codex Sinaiticus. (The Leipzig portion of Sinaiticus)

Terrell

BadDog
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:31 PM
tgallison,

The CT didn't "change" the text in John 1:18, which is a powerful testimony of the deity of Christ in which the textus receptus messed up. Why should we not think that it is the TR which is in error here? Especially with the overwhelming evidence in old manuscripts (MSS) to that effect?

I get tired of KJVO people assuming that anything different than the KJV in English must have been changed. Invariably when we check them out we find the evidence on the side of the Alexandrian text.

Here's the NET comments on this:

45 tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (“the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (“the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the MSS, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of MSSs, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7].

Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

One of his arguments is that it can be understood why a scribe copying the text could have read "one and only God" and missed the one letter, thinking it was, "One and only Son," since this was used by John. But the reading, "one and only God" fits better grammatically, details above, and we cannot explain how a scribe could read "one and only Son" and change it to "one and only God."

There is an apositive here, and the idea is something like, "No one has ever seen God. The one-and-only one who is the same as God, who is in the lap of the Father, has made him known." Or perhaps, "No one has ever seen God. The divine one-and-only one, who is in the lap of the Father, has made him known."



BD

tgallison
Apr 23rd 2009, 04:40 PM
tgallison,

The CT didn't "change" the text in John 1:18, which is a powerful testimony of the deity of Christ in which the textus receptus messed up. Why should we not think that it is the TR which is in error here? Especially with the overwhelming evidence in old manuscripts (MSS) to that effect?

I get tired of KJVO people assuming that anything different than the KJV in English must have been changed. Invariably when we check them out we find the evidence on the side of the Alexandrian text.

Here's the NET comments on this:


One of his arguments is that it can be understood why a scribe copying the text could have read "one and only God" and missed the one letter, thinking it was, "One and only Son," since this was used by John. But the reading, "one and only God" fits better grammatically, details above, and we cannot explain how a scribe could read "one and only Son" and change it to "one and only God."

There is an apositive here, and the idea is something like, "No one has ever seen God. The one-and-only one who is the same as God, who is in the lap of the Father, has made him known." Or perhaps, "No one has ever seen God. The divine one-and-only one, who is in the lap of the Father, has made him known."

BD

BD greetings

Your style is very similar in nature to Joe's postings.

You have jumped in here to turn the subject away from the Sinaiticus. (My apologies, I do not know that, a presumption that I made that shouldn't have been made.)

But as I have previously told Joe, the peripheral is what you are presenting, when the heart of the presentation is the placement of Jesus.

Perhaps I will get to hear from Joe on the Sinaiticus?

Best regards, Terrell

The Parson
Apr 23rd 2009, 04:49 PM
BD, how exactly did the TR "mess up" the deity of Christ? Just curious...

BadDog
Apr 23rd 2009, 08:04 PM
BD, how exactly did the TR "mess up" the deity of Christ? Just curious...
Parson,

Hey, good to hear from you.

Well, Erasmus did not have the oldest MSS, as you're aware, in which we see QEOS rather then UEOS. What we have here is a matter of different Greek texts that were translated.

The reason I jumped in here is because the OP assumes that since most modern translations have "one and only God" rather than "one and only Son" (or "only begotten Son"), that the modern translations, or rather the Greek text that the modern translations are based upon, are wrong. He presumptuously just says that "Hey, I got this verse that shows that all these modern translations are messed up."

Ridiculous. So I probably jumped in here a little harder than necessary, Parson. But I hear accusations that the CT decreases emphasis on the deity of Christ. Well, here's a place where the MT did just that. Notice that I did not say that the KJV translators (actually, it was a revision, not a new translation, but you get the idea) got it wrong, as they based their translation here upon what IMO is faulty Greek text. They translated the Greek fairly well that they had available.

BD

BadDog
Apr 23rd 2009, 08:09 PM
BD greetings

Your style is very similar in nature to Joe's postings.

You have jumped in here to turn the subject away from the Sinaiticus. (My apologies, I do not know that, a presumption that I made that shouldn't have been made.)

But as I have previously told Joe, the peripheral is what you are presenting, when the heart of the presentation is the placement of Jesus.

Perhaps I will get to hear from Joe on the Sinaiticus?

Best regards, TerrellHi Terrell,

Yeah, I did just "jump in here." But the OP is about John 1:18, and that's where I'm giving my :2cents: . Joe and I know each other pretty well, and have been involved on threads together before. (As well as "The Parson" :D I like how The Parson interacts - we should be able to disagree agreeably.)

Anyway, I did not want to place the focus on Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, but upon the Greek record, in general. I didn't respond to your post, but to the OP. It's interesting that this particular verse was chosen, because the CT translates in such a way as to accentuate the deity of Christ.

BD

The Parson
Apr 23rd 2009, 09:12 PM
Parson,

Hey, good to hear from you.

Well, Erasmus did not have the oldest MSS, as you're aware, in which we see QEOS rather then UIOS. What we have here is a matter of different Greek texts that were translated.

The reason I jumped in here is because the OP assumes that since most modern translations have "one and only God" rather than "one and only Son" (or "only begotten Son"), that the modern translations, or rather the Greek text that the modern translations are based upon, are wrong. He presumptuously just says that "Hey, I got this verse that shows that all these modern translations are messed up."

Ridiculous. So I probably jumped in here a little harder than necessary, Parson. But I hear accusations that the CT decreases emphasis on the deity of Christ. Well, here's a place where the MT did just that. Notice that I did not say that the KJV translators (actually, it was a revision, not a new translation, but you get the idea) got it wrong, as they based their translation here upon what IMO is faulty Greek text. They translated the Greek fairly well that they had available.

BDBD, good to see you again too. Missed seeing your posts. You are right though, of the texts referring to the Savior as God as the only begotten, there are few that actually do that. And of TR, it's true that for the first and second of the stages of compilation he didn't have the oldest however, later compilations showed the use of the codex that was borrowed by Erasmus from John Reuchlin, and was thought to have been an actual copy from apostolic days. Search that one out and see what you come up with.

Your servant sir...

tgallison
Apr 23rd 2009, 09:36 PM
Hi Terrell,

Yeah, I did just "jump in here." But the OP is about John 1:18, and that's where I'm giving my :2cents: . Joe and I know each other pretty well, and have been involved on threads together before.

Anyway, I did not want to place the focus on Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, but upon the Greek record, in general. I didn't respond to your post, but to the OP. It's interesting that this particular verse was chosen, because the CT translates in such a way as to accentuate the deity if Christ.

BD

BD greetings

If you had read this thread you would have seen that the emphasis of this thread was intended to be the point that Jesus has been moved from on, or in the arm, to outside the arm of God. The in and at of it was to show the manipulation of translations with the ASV going 12 times with on, and the NASB coming along and changing it to no ons.

But if don't agree with the at or on, that is fine, at doesn't change the meaning completely. Still, neither you nor Joe has addressed the fact that the translations are now putting Jesus on the outside of the Father.

The manuscripts are fair game, since the CT is mentioned in the OP.

tgallison
Apr 23rd 2009, 09:51 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2052333]

I don't know if this has any impact on your view about Sinaiticus. If your distrust is on the fact that it was in the trash bin, then know that the information that was given to you is inaccurate. Might want to double-check your source. Again, the "trash bin" manuscript is Codex Frederico-Augustanas. If your ever in Leipzig, you can go see that. If you get to visit the British Museum, you can see Codex Sinaiticus which was taken care of very well at St. Catherine's.

Joe greetings

It is true that the Sinaiticus was found in the trash bin, according to Tischendorf's own words. If you still refute this, could you please post your sources?

TrustGzus
Apr 24th 2009, 12:51 AM
BD greetings

If you had read this thread you would have seen that the emphasis of this thread was intended to be the point that Jesus has been moved from on, or in the arm, to outside the arm of God. The in and at of it was to show the manipulation of translations with the ASV going 12 times with on, and the NASB coming along and changing it to no ons.

But if don't agree with the at or on, that is fine, at doesn't change the meaning completely. Still, neither you nor Joe has addressed the fact that the translations are now putting Jesus on the outside of the Father.
Terrell, go back and re-read my posts. I've addressed this and you haven't responded to me.


I pointed that the KJV translates ἐν as at in Hebrews 12:2 and Romans 8:34. Thus, the KJV puts "Jesus on the outside of the Father".
I pointed out that Matthew Henry, John Wesley and Charles Hodge (all of whom died before the RV or any modern version was around) are three commentators whose works I own and in their commentaries they render ἐν as at in many of these passages. The RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV or any other modern version had no influence on them. Two of those men died before Westcott & Hort were even born. Yet those three men render ἐν the way modern versions do.

Go back and read my post #32 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2051264&postcount=32) where I give more detail. So you can't say I haven't addressed this. Further, while I'm providing pre-modern version scholars who translate ἐν as at, I asked you to give documentation that you're espousing the "previous views" prior to the new versions as you claimed in post #30 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2050680&postcount=30) where you stated . . .
IMO the new translations are stretching beyond the limits, the Greek, in order to promote a view that is contrary to previous views.I'm still waiting for documentation.

You've given me nothing to side with you as I have scholars who side with modern versions who died before the modern versions came to be and even the KJV doesn't consistently agree with you. I don't know what more you could ask for when the KJV doesn't support your view 100%.

On a different thought, I might not post as much the next few days. I'm working through Sunday and my work days are 14 hours long. With three kids from ages 6-13, I shouldn't spend the rest of my few waking hours in here. So, I'll read further comments in the thread but probably won't respond till the weekend is over -- or if I respond it will most likely be brief.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
Apr 24th 2009, 12:59 AM
Terrell, I read the quote you provided from Tischendorf. However, I think you missed an important part of what he said by merely focusing on the "taken out of the basket" part of the quote. In the process of emphasizing that part, you missed what specifically was taken out of the basket and what was never in the basket.

Let me bold some different words that are important in understanding the quote.
"--And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying , he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete,--" (New York: American Tract Society, 1866).You know that but is a conjunction for contrasting.

When he took Codex Frederico-Augustanus, he was allowed to take exactly only 1/3, i.e 43 of the 129 leaves. Then in 1859, he was shown not only the other 2/3 of Frederico-Augustanus that he had pulled from the basket, but also . . . , i.e. things that weren't in the basket (such as the New Testament which is in too good of a condition to have ever been in the basket based on other sources).

Sorry, but I think you misinterpreted the words.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 02:07 AM
Terrell, I read the quote you provided from Tischendorf. However, I think you missed an important part of what he said by merely focusing on the "taken out of the basket" part of the quote. In the process of emphasizing that part, you missed what specifically was taken out of the basket and what was never in the basket.

Let me bold some different words that are important in understanding the quote.You know that but is a conjunction for contrasting.

When he took Codex Frederico-Augustanus, he was allowed to take exactly only 1/3, i.e 43 of the 129 leaves. Then in 1859, he was shown not only the other 2/3 of Frederico-Augustanus that he had pulled from the basket, but also . . . , i.e. things that weren't in the basket (such as the New Testament which is in too good of a condition to have ever been in the basket based on other sources).

Sorry, but I think you misinterpreted the words.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Joe Greetings

Tischendorf called the Siniaticus "the pearl of the Convent of St. Catherine."

There can be no doubt that the Codex Frederick Augustus was the Old Testament part of the Siniaticus, which according to Tischendorf was copied from the Septuagint. Unless you prefer not to believe Tischendorf, for which I would not blame you.

Below are some extracts from his speech at the Conference of Evangelical Church of Germany, held in Altenburg, in the month of September, 1864, and from which some parts of the speech relating to the Siniaticus was made into a phamplet for the Religious Tract Society at Zwickau.

"The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen."


"On my return to Saxony there were men of learning who at once appreciated the value of the treasure which I brought back with me. I did not divulge the name of the place where I had found it, in the hopes of returning and recovering the rest of the manuscript. I handed over to the Saxon Government my rich collection of Oriental manuscripts in return for the payment of all my travelling expenses. I deposited in the library of the University of Leipzig, in shape of a collection, which bears my name, fifty manuscripts, some of which are very rare and interesting. I did the same with the Sinaitic fragments, to which I gave the name of Codex Frederick Augustus, in acknowledgment of the patronage given to me by the King of Saxony; and I published them in Saxony in a sumptuous edition, in which each letter and stroke was exactly reproduced by the aid of lithography." (This was upon the return in 1844 after his first trip.)


"I resolved, therefore, to return to the East to copy this priceless manuscript. Having set out from Leipzig in January, 1853, I embarked at Trieste for Egypt, and in the month of February I stood for the second time in the Convent of Sinai. This second journey was more successful even than the first, from the discoveries that I made of rare Biblical manuscripts; but I was not able to discover any further traces of the treasure of 1844. I forget: I found in a roll of papers a little fragment which, written over on both sides, contained eleven short lines of Genesis, which convince me that the manuscript originally contained the entire Old Testament, but that the greater part had been long since destroyed."


"On my return, I reproduced in the first volume of a collection of ancient Christian documents the page of the Sinaitic manuscript which I had transcribed in 1844, without divulging the secret of where I had found it. I confined myself to the statement that I claimed the distinction of having discovered other documents--no matter whether published in Berlin or Oxford--as I assumed that some learned travellers, who had visited the convent after me, had managed to carry them off."


"I cannot here refrain from mentioning the peculiar satisfaction I had experienced a little before this. A learned Englishman, one of my friends, had been sent into the East by his Government to discover and purchase old Greek manuscripts, and spared no cost in obtaining them. I had cause to fear, especially for my pearl of the Convent of St. Catherine; but I heard that he had not succeeded in acquiring anything, and had not even gone as far as Sinai--"for," as he said in his official report, "after the visit of such an antiquarian and critic as Dr. Tischendorf, I could not expect any success." I saw by this how well advised I had been to reveal to no one my secret of 1844."


"And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete,"

All extracts are taken from the (New York: American Tract Society, 1866)

It has to be obvious to all that the pearl that Tischendorf is talking about is the Siniaticus. The one he held all the hope for on his return trips. The one he had transcribed a page of in 1844. The one he had found in a basket on his first trip.

Best regards, Terrell

BadDog
Apr 24th 2009, 11:50 AM
BD greetings

If you had read this thread you would have seen that the emphasis of this thread was intended to be the point that Jesus has been moved from on, or in the arm, to outside the arm of God. The in and at of it was to show the manipulation of translations with the ASV going 12 times with on, and the NASB coming along and changing it to no ons.

But if don't agree with the at or on, that is fine, at doesn't change the meaning completely. Still, neither you nor Joe has addressed the fact that the translations are now putting Jesus on the outside of the Father.

The manuscripts are fair game, since the CT is mentioned in the OP.
Terrell,

Thx. You're right that I popped in pretty quickly without perusing the text carefully enough. Your OP wasn't clear.

BTW, we're talking about the use of prepositions here. IMO you're making too much of the translation of these prepositions. Their range of meaning is fairly wide, and context has bearing as well as grammatical considerations. But do not assume that the translators of older translations got it right.

The ASV and NASB are both fine. I don't have the time to say much right now... hopefully later today or tomorrow.

And I wouldn't express it as if the translators had some agenda... They were men of God doing their best to translate the Greek and Hebrew text as they believed was honoring to the text and accurate. The same was true of the translators of older translations as well. But people make mistakes.

BD

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 12:29 PM
Terrell,

Thx. You're right that I popped in pretty quickly without perusing the text carefully enough. Your OP wasn't clear.

BTW, we're talking about the use of prepositions here. IMO you're making too much of the translation of these prepositions. Their range of meaning is fairly wide, and context has bearing as well as grammatical considerations. But do not assume that the translators of older translations got it right.

The ASV and NASB are both fine. I don't have the time to say much right now... hopefully later today or tomorrow.

And I wouldn't express it as if the translators had some agenda... They were men of God doing their best to translate the Greek and Hebrew text as they believed was honoring to the text and accurate. The same was true of the translators of older translations as well. But people make mistakes.

BD

BD greetings

It is all about the pattern of change that leads to putting Jesus on the outside of the Father. This is the heart of what I presented, but nobody will address it.

It is the same pattern that is seen by the so called recently discovered old manuscripts, through which all these new translations have come.

The old manuscripts differ, in that the hand of one man is over almost all of them, and his name is Constantin von Tischendorf, the magic man. The only man ever to be given free access to the Codex Vaticanus. The man that gave him that access was Pope Gregory the 16th.

RabbiKnife
Apr 24th 2009, 01:58 PM
BD greetings

It is all about the pattern of change that leads to putting Jesus on the outside of the Father. This is the heart of what I presented, but nobody will address it.

It is the same pattern that is seen by the so called recently discovered old manuscripts, through which all these new translations have come.

The old manuscripts differ, in that the hand of one man is over almost all of them, and his name is Constantin von Tischendorf, the magic man. The only man ever to be given free access to the Codex Vaticanus. The man that gave him that access was Pope Gregory the 16th.

No one can address your hypothesis because it simply is not true. We've said that repeatedly, yet you refuse to acknowledge that anyone has addressed the issue.

NO MANUSCRIPT "SEPARATES" JESUS FROM THE FATHER! GET OVER IT, PLEASE!

NO MANUSCRIPT MAKES JESUS ANY LESS THAN FULLY GOD.

Your obsession with anthropomorphic literary devices as some sinister conspiracy to de-deify Jesus in mind-numbing.

:B:B:B:B:B:B:B:B:B

BadDog
Apr 24th 2009, 02:22 PM
In 1901 the English Text in John 1:18 read--

American Standard Version
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the

bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

What has the Critical Text supporters changed?

1. They changed Son to God.
2. They changed begotten to only or unique.
3. They changed in the bosom to close to the Father’s side.
4. They changed declared to explained.
Terrell,

Let me preface this by saying that IMO the ASV-1901 was a very good translation. I like it. I was involved in a revision of it into a modern MT translation - the WEB. But the translators of the ASV-1901 did not have all the tools of modern scholarship to bring to bear on this verse.

The ASV-1901 was based upon the critical text (Westcott-Hort), but the CT was still fairly recent, and the translators did consider other than just the older MSS (CT). So they translated μονογενὴς as "begotten" rather than as "only" or "unique" which modern Greek experts say is the correct meaning because they did not have as clear an understanding of the meaning of μονογενὴς at the time as we do now. They also selected "Son" (υἱος) vs. "God" (θεὸς), which is basing their selection on the majority text rather than the CT. The HCSB, which came out in about 2002 and is based upon the CT, also translated it as "Son." So there is some (strong) division of thought on this. Some of the CT MSS also have υἱος ("Son").

But they did not change "Son" to "God" or "begotten" to "only or unique." They did not change "in the bosom" to "by the Father's side" or "declared" to "explained." They are basing those decisions upon lexicons. μονογενὴς does mean "unique" or "only." γενὴς does not mean "born" (noun), as translators as recent as a hundred years ago thought.

Now regarding translating "εἰς τὸν κόλπον" - "in the bosom" or "in intimate proximity" as "close to the Father's side"... what's the big concern here? Do we use "bosom" today? ... with the same meaning as say 100 or more years ago? No. So shouldn't we prefer to translate it so that the meaning of being in intimate proximity (my words - but that's the idea) comes across clearly? The Greek term does not mean just "bosom" but has the idea of the front of the garment. IOW, the person is very close to someone else... they're in hugable distance. :P I don't see the big deal here. Perhaps it could be expressed in more intimate terms, and I would prefer that as well, but what was written is accurate, just not as poetic. Is there a modern term meaning essentially to be within the arms of someone? That would be a good way or translating. But the NASB translated very accurately here.


OK, here's the Greek text:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

ἐξηγέομαι has the idea of "leading out, to be the leader" or "to draw out, as in a narrative; to unfold a teaching." It means "to interpret things which are typically sacred or divine, or perhaps to explain a dream." IOW, the idea is not simply "to declare" something or someone... but "to interpret or explain." Now the term can be used to mean simply "to recount the details" of something, but we have other Greek words which mean simply "to report" or "declare," and the apostle John used those terms in 1 John 1. He did not use them here, and IMO that is significant. We lose the significance of the word with such a translation. Translating it as "declare Him" misses out on the nuances of the Greek here. The modern translations have done a superior job of getting to the essence.

So IMO "to explain" is better than simply "to declare." And most translators seem to agree with me here, as do the lexicons. For example, in 1 John 1:2 John says that "we testify and declare to you..." The Greek word there is ἀπαγγέλλομεν. If John had meant simply "to declare" he would have used ἀπαγγέλλομεν in John 1:18, as he did in 1 John 1:2 and 3. In 1 John 1:5 John used a similar word, ἀναγγέλλομεν - the idea of "reporting" or "declaring." But it is the Son who is "explaining" the Father in John 1:18, so John chose a different word (ἐξηγέομαι - "to lead out or explain." ἐξ [ἐκ] means "out.") which has the idea of more than just "declaring." So the NASB captured the intended idea of the Son "explaining" or "interpreting" the Father to the world.


FWIW, as I see it the NASB and the HCSB and other modern translations did a good job of translating John 1:18. How is the ASV-1901 better than the NASB? The only real issue is whether we should have "Son" or "God," but that is a matter of textual criticism. I can offer an opinion on that, but that is just what it would be - an opinion, and I'm still not completely sure about what it should probably be there.

For example, if you consider what the Majority Text Society says about this (http://www.majoritytext.org/newsletter2.htm), they also are unsure about whether it should be "Son" or "God." Here's what Dr. JK Elliott, a MT adherrant, says on this:

Is Jesus described at the end of the Johannine Prologue as 'God' or as 'Son'? This well-known text-critical problem is drawn to many Bible readers' attention by its being included in the marginal notes to many a modern version. Also, it is thoroughly debated in learned commentaries. The textual evidence is clearly set out in modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The apparatus does not need repeating in extenso here, suffice it to say that the issue boils down to whether the original reading was 'God' with or without the article as read in our earliest surviving witnesses (P66 P75 Sin B C) or 'Son' with the majority of manuscripts. The Patristic writers know both readings, and some fathers sometimes use the form with 'God' [and] sometimes the form with 'Son' when citing this verse in their writings.

If we cannot resolve the variant using internal or external criteria what is to be done?

Theologians traditionally expect textual critics to pronounce categorically on the originality and secondariness of every variant in the New Testament. That expectation is unrealistic and unachievable. Several readings seem impervious to satisfactory resolution, whatever one's methodological proclivities. In any case it may perhaps be a better function of textual criticism if it alerts readers to the sheer variety of viable options in a text that has had a theologically rich history. Most theologically sensitive readings reflect early Christological debate and thus bear valuable historical testimony. If the results of textual criticism promote only the supposed original reading, the danger is that the secondary readings are jettisoned as flawed and spurious. We thus forget that all readings were once used as canonical by the owners of each manuscript.

So in conclusion it appears that one verse did not "expose the CT and modern translations," but it exposed the weaker scholarship of the older translations. Now that's not completely fair, I suppose, since even 100 years ago we did not have nearly as many Greek documents to help us understand the meanings of words, and I'm not just talking about Greek NT manuscripts. IOW, we now have many business and other such secular MSS, and when we see words used in everyday life in these MSS it gives a context and helps Greek experts to determine the meaning of words more clearly, by comparison. Because we do not have Greek dictionaries or lexicons from that time saying specifically what this or that word means, we have to determine that from context and how it was used in various other documents. Today we have many, many more of such MSS to help us determine more precisely the meanings of words used then. Many of those were found in such digs as the "dead sea scrolls," which included not just the OT Septuagint and Hebrew or Aramaic MSS, but also business papers. That's what happened with μονογενὴς. There was some misunderstanding about it before. The same translators of the ASV-1901, if they were alive today, would likely have translated that verse somewhat differently themselves.

BD

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 05:40 PM
So in conclusion it appears that one verse did not "expose the CT and modern translations," but it exposed the weaker scholarship of the older translations. Now that's not completely fair, I suppose, since even 100 years ago we did not have nearly as many Greek documents to help us understand the meanings of words, and I'm not just talking about Greek NT manuscripts. IOW, we now have many business and other such secular MSS

BD

You are saying poor scholarship and Greek documents are the reason for the change.

Your last statement about not just Greek Manuscripts, but just any writing.

Does this mean that if the new found old GreeK Manuscripts don't hold up under scrutiny, it dosen't matter. You will still hold your ground.

The only reason for the change before was the new found old Greek manuscripts that prove the existing translations were wrong.

BadDog
Apr 24th 2009, 07:02 PM
You are saying poor scholarship and Greek documents are the reason for the change.

Your last statement about not just Greek Manuscripts, but just any writing.

Does this mean that if the new found old GreeK Manuscripts don't hold up under scrutiny, it dosen't matter. You will still hold your ground.

The only reason for the change before was the new found old Greek manuscripts that prove the existing translations were wrong.
I'm nor sure what you're asking. Let me clarify and hopefully it will answer your questions.

By poor scholarship I do not mean that the Greek/Hebrew translators were poor scholars, but that the MSS available to them was very limited. That led to misunderstandings about the meanings of words as well textual critic errors. How could they be as good in their scholarship if they had very few MSS to help them discern the meanings of words at the time? I do not mean to disparage them as individuals, for if they were alive today and had our materials of which to avail themselves, surely they would be CT people. But even if they still used the MT, they would translate some words and phrases much differently certainly. But regarding the TR - no way any of those men would still follow it. They were scholars.

Now if for some reason the hundreds of old Greek MSS each did not hold up under close scrutiny, then we would have to follow the more recent texts, of course. I am not an opponent of the majority text. About 10, 11 years ago I was involved in a project to revise the ASV-1901 to a majority text revision, working with MP Johnson. I used the apparatus of Hodges-Farstad's The New Testament According to the Greek Majority Text to insure that each of the CT translations were changed to MT translations. I used to be a staunch MT guy. I have since been convinced that the CT is more reliable and closer to the original MSS. I could be wrong - was before. :D

I am also convinced that if Erasmus had some of the CT available to him, his TR would have looked far different. Now while I do like the MT, I believe the TR to be a very poor representative of it. My personal position is that of Harry Sturz who wants the Western text family, Alexandrian text family and Byzantine text family to all be considered when making decisions. That's my personal position as well. Though I do consider the CT in general to be a superior family to the MT, there are certainly many instances in which the MT should be favored. (For example, when the CT is split.) But I would not ignore the MT. Unfortunately those who hold to the CT tend to just ignore MT MSS as too recent and those who still hold to the MT regard the CT as corrupted and ignore them as well.

Now one thing both MT and CT adherents don't realize... though there are thousands of Greek MSS (something like 5300), only something like 58 MSS have the NT in whole. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus are three such, and each are far older than the oldest MT manuscript which is complete (or partial for that matter, though there are a couple of old MT small portions of manuscript [p76 is one, I think], they do not follow the MT pattern as closely as more recent ones). Most of the thousands of MT manuscripts are only a few verses, a chapter or two, a single book, etc. The reason I am so opposed to the TR is that Erasmus had not a single large MS with which to work. He had just one partial MS of Paul's writings, one of the gospels and an incomplete one for the Apocalypse. Now of course it took some time before people began to place the individual letters into one MS. So a partial NT is fine... I'd take an older more accurate reading of one of Paul's letters over a much more recent MS which is complete. The nice thing about the 3 CT manuscripts I mentioned above is that they are complete or nearly so, and they are each in the 4th century. Try finding a MT manuscript before the 6th century. They're very scarce until about the 9th century. Then we see a plethora of them.

Hope that helps.

Now Terrell, I did address each of the 4 points you made in your OP in post #61.

BD

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 07:40 PM
Now one thing both MT and CT adherents don't realize... though there are thousands of Greek MSS (something like 5300), only something like 58 MSS which have the NT in whole. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandricus are three such, and each are far older than the oldest MT manuscript which is complete (or partial for that matter, though there are a couple of old MT small portions of manuscript, they do not follow the MT pattern as closely as more recent ones). Most of the thousands of MT manuscripts are only a few verses, a chapter or two, a single book, etc. The reason I am so opposed to the TR is that Erasmus had not a single large MS with which to work. He had just one partial MS of Paul's writings and an incomplete one for the Apocalypse. Now of course it took some time before people began to place the individual letters into one MS. So a partial NT is fine... I'd take an older more accurate reading of one of Paul's letters over a much more recent MS which is complete. The nice thing about the 3 CT manuscripts I mentioned above is that they are complete or nearly so.

Hope that helps.

BD

BD how much have you studied Tischendorf? You do realize that of the three manuscripts you mention, what we know of two of them is only through the hand of Tischendorf.

From what I have found, no one has seen the Vaticanus. What we have is Tischendorf's rendition of it. The same goes for the Siniaticus. When you start checking all of the information on Tischendorf, it is unbelieveable.

Terrell

BadDog
Apr 24th 2009, 08:08 PM
BD how much have you studied Tischendorf? You do realize that of the three manuscripts you mention, what we know of two of them is only through the hand of Tischendorf.

From what I have found, no one has seen the Vaticanus. What we have is Tischendorf's rendition of it. The same goes for the Siniaticus. When you start checking all of the information on Tischendorf, it is unbelieveable.

TerrellUh, you'll have to site the sources on this. As I understand it the Codex Vaticanus is presently at the British Museum and carbon-dated to the early 4th century. The Codex Sinaiticus (most of it) is in the British Library. BTW, the entire codex was not found in the trash bin, but only a small portion of it - perhaps mistakenly thrown away and not recognized as part of the rest of the codex. All of the NT survived. It includes the Greek Septuagint as well. Sinaiticus is dated to the mid 4th century.

Now guys, I hate to get into these discussions. I just do so to protect modern translations from being unfairly maligned. But not much of that at all has happened here, fortunately.

I did still address your 4 points in the OP. Anyway, I think it's time for me to move onto some discussion which is more profitable for the brethren in general, such as the trinity.

BD

tgallison
Apr 24th 2009, 08:44 PM
Uh, you'll have to site the sources on this. As I understand it the Codex Vaticanus is presently at the British Museum and carbon-dated to the early 4th century.
BD

When did it leave the Vatican Library? Do you have a source for this statement?

IMINXTC
Apr 25th 2009, 03:16 AM
I probably should have asked this in another thread, but since it has come up: for clarification:

Is there actually a copy of the LXX in the Dead Sea Scolls, or is there rather a Greek text that agrees with the LXX in certain places?

Or, where is the final authority on the existence a pre-New Testament LXX (aside from traditions).

tgallison
Apr 25th 2009, 12:16 PM
I probably should have asked this in another thread, but since it has come up: for clarification:

Is there actually a copy of the LXX in the Dead Sea Scolls, or is there rather a Greek text that agrees with the LXX in certain places?

Or, where is the final authority on the existence a pre-New Testament LXX (aside from traditions).

The Septuagint is not part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Both are dated approximately in the same time frame.

That which is in the Dead Sea Scrolls can be over a wide time frame since their is a variety of findings.

The majority of the text which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is similar to the Masoretic Text. Moving the Masoretic Text to the 2nd century.

Details are really sketchy since different parts are in different hands and a lot of the actual texts have remained private.

Terrell

BadDog
Apr 27th 2009, 08:08 PM
When did it leave the Vatican Library? Do you have a source for this statement?No, I don't. They have confidence about the dating of papyrus based on its binding and the style as well. I just cannot imagine them not doing a carbon-dating - they estimate its age at 325-350 AD typically.

BD

tgallison
Apr 27th 2009, 08:37 PM
No, I don't. They have confidence about the dating of papyrus based on its binding and the style as well. I just cannot imagine them not doing a carbon-dating - they estimate its age at 325-350 AD typically.

BD

BD greetings

I don't doubt that the papyrus and some of the writing dates to an early age.

The problem is in the fact that it has so many corrections, and that it has been inked over, and that some pages "seemed" to have been added, and some have definitely been added.

If in fact it was accurate it would not be able to stand alone without the aid of Codex Sinaiticus (01) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (04).

Both which appear to have been manufactured by Tischendorf when looking at the evidence.

And thus there would have been no excuse for all these new translations.

Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 01:36 AM
BD greetings

I don't doubt that the papyrus and some of the writing dates to an early age.

The problem is in the fact that it has so many corrections, and that it has been inked over, and that some pages "seemed" to have been added, and some have definitely been added.

If in fact it was accurate it would not be able to stand alone without the aid of Codex Sinaiticus (01) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (04).

Both which appear to have been manufactured by Tischendorf when looking at the evidence.

And thus there would have been no excuse for all these new translations.

TerrellAm I misunderstanding you? Are you claiming Tischendorf manufactured Sinaiticus? And Ephraemi Rescriptus? There's history on Ephraemi Rescriptus that pre-dates Tischendorf by 300 years.

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 01:38 AM
BD greetings

I don't doubt that the papyrus and some of the writing dates to an early age.

The problem is in the fact that it has so many corrections, and that it has been inked over, and that some pages "seemed" to have been added, and some have definitely been added.

If in fact it was accurate it would not be able to stand alone without the aid of Codex Sinaiticus (01) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (04).

Both which appear to have been manufactured by Tischendorf when looking at the evidence.

And thus there would have been no excuse for all these new translations.

TerrellIn the text in the opening post, John 1:18, p66 and p75 agree also with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. p66 and p75 pre-date the two codices by 200 years or so.

tgallison
Apr 28th 2009, 01:50 AM
In the text in the opening post, John 1:18, p66 and p75 agree also with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. p66 and p75 pre-date the two codices by 200 years or so.

Are you saying that they have Jesus standing alongside of God, instead of in his arms?

tgallison
Apr 28th 2009, 03:26 AM
Am I misunderstanding you? Are you claiming Tischendorf manufactured Sinaiticus? And Ephraemi Rescriptus? There's history on Ephraemi Rescriptus that pre-dates Tischendorf by 300 years.

Greetings Joe

Can you show us a copy of anybody's work on Ephraemi Rescriptus, other than Tischendorf's?

Below is an excerpt from The Catholic Encylopedia.

From these indications and the character of the writing, Codex C is placed in the first half of the fifth century, along with A. Tischendorf distinguished two scribes (contemporaries), one for O. T., the other for N. T., and two correctors, one (Cs) of the sixth, the other (C') of the ninth century; he conjectured that Egypt was the place of origin. With the exception of Tischendorf no modern has really studied the MS.

This is recorded of Wettstein in Wikipedia



Johann Jakob Wettstein
In 1716 he made the acquaintance of Richard Bentley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bentley) at the University of Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge); Bentley took great interest in his work and persuaded him to return to Paris to collate carefully the Codex Ephraemi, Bentley having then in view a critical edition of the New Testament.


But in Bentley's Biography there is no mention of Wettstein collating the Codex Ephraemi, only that Wettstein assisted him for four years in some Critical study of which no mention is made of Codex Ephraemi. It is also charged of Wettstein that he did not believe in the Deity of Christ.


From Bentley's Biography--


In 1716, in a letter to William Wake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wake), Archbishop of Canterbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_of_Canterbury), Bentley announced his plan of preparing a critical edition of the New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament). During the next four years, assisted by J. J. Wetstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Wetstein), an eminent biblical critic, who claimed to have been the first to suggest the idea to Bentley, he collected materials for the work, and in 1720 published Proposals for a New Edition of the Greek Testament, with specimens of the manner in which he intended to carry it out.

And then you have this by Tischendorf--

At the Conference of the Evangelical Church of Germany, held at Altenburg, in the month of September. 1864

"The work I advert to was this. There lay in one of the libraries of Paris one of the most important manuscripts then known of the Greek text. This parchment manuscript, the writing of which, of the date of the fifth century, had been retouched and renewed in the seventh, and again in the ninth century, had, in the twelfth century, been submitted to a twofold process. It had been washed and pumiced, to write on it the treatises of an old father of the Church of the name of Ephrem. Five centuries later, a Swiss theologian of the name of Wetstein had attempted to decipher a few traces of the original manuscript; and, later still, another theologian, Griesbach of Jena, came to try his skill on it, although the librarian assured him that it was impossible for mortal eye to decipher a writing which had disappeared for six centuries. In spite of these unsuccessful attempts, the French Government had recourse to powerful chemical reagents, to bring out the effaced characters. But a Leipzig theologian, who was then at Paris, was so unsuccessful in this new attempt, that he asserted that it was impossible to produce an edition of this text, as the manuscript was quite illegible. It was after all these attempts that I began, in 1841-2, to try my skill at the manuscript, and had the good fortune to decipher it completely, and even to distinguish between the dates of the different writers who had been engaged on the manuscript."

This extract was taken from Constantin von Tischendorf, When Where Our Gospels Written? an Argument by Canstantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript (New York: American Tract Society, 1866).

Is Tischendorf lying in this article?

Terrell

tgallison
Apr 28th 2009, 01:32 PM
Am I misunderstanding you? Are you claiming Tischendorf manufactured Sinaiticus? And Ephraemi Rescriptus? There's history on Ephraemi Rescriptus that pre-dates Tischendorf by 300 years.

Joe Greetings,

Yes there is a history. The manuscript was so revered that they removed the writing by a two fold process of washing and pumicing, and then writing over it.

The first man to attempt to make this corrupt manuscript come back to life was Wettstein in 1716.


"Then a rumour began that Wettstein's projected text would take the Socinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinian) side in the case of such passages as i Timothy iii. 16;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Wettstein#cite_note-0) and in other ways (e.g. by regarding Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus)'s temptation as a subjective experience, by explaining some of the miracles in a natural way) he gave occasion for the suspicion of heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy). At length in 1729 the charge of projecting an edition of the Greek Testament savouring of Arian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) and Socinian views was formally laid against him. The end of the long and unedifying trial was his dismissal, on May 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_13), 1730 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1730), from his office of curate of St Leonard's." (Wikipedia biography of JJ Wettstein)

It seems like a lot of those that were interested in changing the Received Text did not believe in the Deity of Christ.

Peace in Christ, Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 03:13 PM
Are you saying that they have Jesus standing alongside of God, instead of in his arms?Terrell, the Greek manuscripts all have εἰς. I was referring to the debate between son/God.

However, in regard to εἰς, BadDog pointed out that you're trying to make too much out of these prepositions. Do you have any idea how many different way the KJV translates this word? For, into, in, at, and others.

On what basis (and with what Greek knowledge) can you be so dogmatic that the KJV has it right and modern translations are wrong?

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 03:30 PM
"Then a rumour began that Wettstein's projected text would take the Socinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinian) side in the case of such passages as i Timothy iii. 16;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Wettstein#cite_note-0) and in other ways (e.g. by regarding Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus)'s temptation as a subjective experience, by explaining some of the miracles in a natural way) he gave occasion for the suspicion of heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy). At length in 1729 the charge of projecting an edition of the Greek Testament savouring of Arian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) and Socinian views was formally laid against him. The end of the long and unedifying trial was his dismissal, on May 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_13), 1730 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1730), from his office of curate of St Leonard's." (Wikipedia biography of JJ Wettstein)

It seems like a lot of those that were interested in changing the Received Text did not believe in the Deity of Christ.

Peace in Christ, TerrellTerrell, I don't see a point in continuing. I've made several points that you have never addressed. These are points that are very important in these attempts to convict modern versions of heresy.

First of all, you've never addressed the fact that the KJV has Jesus at the right hand of God in Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 12:2.

Second, I've pointed out more than once a simple explanation for the fact that 1 Timothy has a very simple scribal explanation how it can change from he (omicron-sigma) to God (theta-sigma). The oldest manuscripts have he. A simple scribal mis-reading or mistake could make this from he into God.

Third, regardless of 1 Timothy 3:16, it's interesting that cults will use only the KJV and not modern versions although according to you, it sounds like modern versions would be to their benefit. Why? Is this because of the great knowledge the cults have on manuscripts and original languages? Not at all. It's because they can fool people more easily with the KJV than an NIV or any other modern language translation into their false beliefs about Jesus.

You've never addressed any of these points. I don't see any benefit in continuing this thread. You make way more of these prepositions than can justly be made and you don't provide any documentation to support your specific hard stances on the prepositions.

People who read this thread can read your thoughts, and they can read counters from myself, BadDog and others that have replied. That's basically all I attempt to do . . . to give people an alternate view to consider so they don't think the KJV is the only Bible they can use (and that in this case, even the KJV is against you in Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 12:2).

For the record, I primarliy use the modern versions. I have for 15 years. I use the KJV when teaching at churches that use the KJV or NKJV. I teach very clearly from the modern versions (or the KJV) that:


Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead.
We're saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus alone
The Bible in the original languages is the inerrant Word of God
Jesus was born of a virgin
Jesus is fully human/fully God.
Trinity
Jesus is coming again to establish his kingdom.

Terrell, I will continue to pop up in threads where you attempt to show the modern versions are not to be trusted. I think this is clearly false. I don't think it's a good thing for your view to go unchallenged. Too many people do not understand the KJV well enough for that to be their primary Bible. As I observe many who use the KJV, I don't even think most of them understand it as well as they think they do. I think their knowledge of the Bible would greatly increase if they'd switch to a modern version.

Grace & peace to you, Terrell.

Joe

IMINXTC
Apr 28th 2009, 05:24 PM
Is it to be inferred that the Christian world from 1611 till the CT was in a partial Bible dark age? Or that the King James Version without the aid of modern scholarship and its correctors is not to be fully trusted or understood?

The CT emerges onto the scene around the close of the 19th century, and this plethora of new versions, largely within the last few decades.

This would represent a period of over 1900 years of Bible obscurity.

I had always understood a large part of the true historical dark ages to be the product of Romanism and it's attempted refusal to allow the Bible to be placed in the hands of the common man in his own vernacular.

While it's common knowledge that the King James translators valued, compared and even opted to use several readings of the Septuagint, The Alexandrian manuscripts still represent only 5% (as was stated earlier) of extant manuscript evidence.

And concerning Jn1:18, and other readings, the question many of us ask:
If it's only a matter of hair-splitting, highly technical variations understood only by scholars and linguists, and there is really no difference in the variant readings, why the need to change, correct or imrove it, thus introducing confusion if not doubt and certainly non-stop debate.
(IMHO, by the way, the NIV reading of Jn1:18 is about as obtuse as it gets). I won't post the verse because of copyright.

I remember in the eighties, meeting well-intentioned believers (especially those representing seminaries) who would carry three bibles and maybe even a lexicon when they came to witness for Christ in the mission field.
Needless to say, they didn't seem to have much success. Okay, I'm outta here.

LORD BLESS!

tgallison
Apr 28th 2009, 05:45 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2057660]Terrell, the Greek manuscripts all have εἰς. I was referring to the debate between son/God.

Joe Son or God does not really make the change, and that is the point of this thread. What does make the change is putting distance between Jesus and His Father. You are continually focused on singe words, while that is not the point of this thread. It is the pattern that keeps showing up. At can mean on or in, but in or on does not mean at.

Besides that. I have a man's book sitting here beside me from 1745, a translation of the Greek from the Alexandrian Texts into English. He was a man that should be after your own heart, for he chose the Alexandrian Texts over the Textus Receptus. I will print his translation of the Alexandrian Text of John 1:18 below.

John 1:18 No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.(William Whiston's translation from Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Claromontanus, and Codex Bezae.)

Just received this translation by UPS this morning. Was interested in how a man from the early eighteenth century would translate these Alexandrian Texts into English.


However, in regard to εἰς, BadDog pointed out that you're trying to make too much out of these prepositions. Do you have any idea how many different way the KJV translates this word? For, into, in, at, and others.BadDog isn't your twin brother is he? He sounds so much like you.

You are avoiding the hard questions, and drowning in the little ones.

Best regards, Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 06:23 PM
Joe Son or God does not really make the change, and that is the point of this thread.Well, Terrell, it was one of your four main points in the OP. If it "does not really make the change", then why bring it up? Can I blamed for derailing when it was one of your four points in the OP?
What does make the change is putting distance between Jesus and His Father. You are continually focused on singe words, while that is not the point of this thread. It is the pattern that keeps showing up. At can mean on or in, but in or on does not mean at.Isn't this about single words? Isn't this about εις and εν and how to translate those words? Terrell, if this isn't about single words then either I just don't understand your point or you don't make your point very clear or a little of both.
Besides that. I have a man's book sitting here beside me from 1745, a translation of the Greek from the Alexandrian Texts into English. He was a man that should be after your own heart, for he chose the Alexandrian Texts over the Textus Receptus. I will print his translation of the Alexandrian Text of John 1:18 below.

John 1:18 No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.(William Whiston's translation from Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Claromontanus, and Codex Bezae.)

Just received this translation by UPS this morning. Was interested in how a man from the early eighteenth century would translate these Alexandrian Texts into English. William Whiston? Are you kidding me? And I should take his translation over modern Christian scholars . . . why?

Whiston was an Arian (i.e. basically a Jehovah's Witness before Charles Taze Russell came on the scene). He was an anti-Trinitarian. Now, that doesn't mean he can't provide a good translation. He could.

Yet Terrell, back to what you haven't addressed for who knows how many times . . . the KJV has Jesus at the right hand in Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 12:2. Why should I go with an anti-Trinitarian Arian over the KJV translators and all modern scholars?
BadDog isn't your twin brother is he? He sounds so much like you.No. I've never met him. We agree on a lot in this area.
You are avoiding the hard questions, and drowning in the little ones.I don't think so.

If anything, Terrell, you're drowning in the little ones. You are taking two prepositions that are translated many different ways in all translations, including the KJV, and saying that in a handful of verses, they must be translated a certain way. And this time even the KJV isn't on your side. Your drowning in little questions of how to translate two little words . . . εις and εν.

εις has such a broad range of meanings that it is even translated against sometimes in the KJV. How can you say that it must be translated as in at John 1:18 without more documentation than that of an anti-Trinitarian Arian?

I don't know why you make such a big deal of these two prepositions and why you are so desparate to make your point that you'll use works from an anti-Trinitarian Arian and actually spend money on it to make your point.

Grace & peace to you, Terrell.

Joe

teddyv
Apr 28th 2009, 06:27 PM
I won't post the verse because of copyright.
Fair use (or fair dealing) permits one to quote passages (with some caveats).

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 06:38 PM
Terrell,

I want to make a special emphasis on the last point I made.

Modern translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. are translated by orthodox, conservative, Evangelical Christians.

In order to hold your charge that they teach heresy or are heretical, or whatever your view is on this, you are now spending money on a book to espouse your view of John 1:18, that was written by a single individual (so that's not much yet to back up your point) who is himself, a heretic.

Step out of the argument and look at this from the view of an outsider as much as you can.

Does this not look strange to you that you are quoting a heretic to bolster your position that translations by orthodox Evangelicals are heretical?

Grace & peace to you. Please give up your war on modern translations.

Joe

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 06:44 PM
(IMHO, by the way, the NIV reading of Jn1:18 is about as obtuse as it gets). I won't post the verse because of copyright.I'm going to piggy-back off of teddyv's response to you. Here's what the NIV states in the inside cover . . .

The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

Notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page of the work as follows:

“Scripture taken from HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.”

When quotations from the NIV are used in a non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparancies or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials (NIV) must appear at the end of each quotation.

Permission request that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to, and approved in writing by, Zondervan Publishing House.
[/URL] [URL="http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref1"] (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1)
The Holy Bible : New International Version. c1984 Grand Rapids: Zondervan.


So you can quote the NIV without permission as long as it doesn't add up to 50% of your post, or include an entire book of the Bible, or doesn't exceed 1,000 verses.

So when I quote, I always include the copyright info, but by doing so, I'm going above and beyond the call of duty. I could just post (NIV) and that would be enough. Occasionally, that is all I do, but I usually include a little more.

Most Bibles have nearly identical info in their inside cover. Some might not be 50%, some might be 25%. Either way, quoting a single verse or even a paragraph or two, won't be an illegal act.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

RogerW
Apr 28th 2009, 06:45 PM
Terrell,

I want to make a special emphasis on the last point I made.

Modern translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. are translated by orthodox, conservative, Evangelical Christians.

In order to hold your charge that they teach heresy or are heretical, or whatever your view is on this, you are now spending money on a book to espouse your view of John 1:18, that was written by a single individual (so that's not much yet to back up your point) who is himself, a heretic.

Step out of the argument and look at this from the view of an outsider as much as you can.

Does this not look strange to you that you are quoting a heretic to bolster your position that translations by orthodox Evangelicals are heretical?

Grace & peace to you. Please give up your war on modern translations.

Joe

Greetings Joe,

Have you missed altogether the plain fact that men, even good Christian men can become deceived? Pleas notice, I am not saying condemned, but deceived. Discovering how modern translations from CT came into existance, it just makes good sense (to me at least) to discover all I can about how the CT and the so-called better, and older manuscripts came to be.

Many Blessings,
RW

IMINXTC
Apr 28th 2009, 06:46 PM
Fair use (or fair dealing) permits one to quote passages (with some caveats).

Thank you!

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Jn1:18 (NIV)

Thanks also to Joe. All my bibles are on software these days.

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 07:08 PM
Is it to be inferred that the Christian world from 1611 till the CT was in a partial Biblical dark age? Or that the King James Version without the aid of modern scholarship and its correctors is not to be fully trusted or understood?Greetings SFASH. I don't know any modern version advocate in this thread that is claiming what you just said. There was no "dark age" from 1611 till modern translations.

I do believe that many misunderstand the KJV today. But that has nothing to do with poor work by the KJV translators. That has to do with the fact that we don't speak Elizabethan English. Many words in the KJV are still words we use today, but the meaning has changed. So a modern reader may think they understand it, but actually mistunderstands it. Thus, they don't look up the word. A couple examples would help. Let's look at 2 Thessalonians 2:7 . . .
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
The Holy Bible : King James Version.What does letteth mean? A modern reader knows to just drop the teth off the back end. So what does let mean? The Greek word there, κατεχων, means to hold down or restrain. It actually means the opposite of let more-or-less.

Second example from Acts 28:13.
13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:

The Holy Bible : King James Version.What does fetched a compass mean? Most people would interpret this to mean that they went and got their hands on a compass to help them navigate.

Big problem though . . . the compass didn't even exist when Acts 28 happened. It was invented by the Chinese in the second century and not used for navigating the waters until the eleventh century.

If I open up my King James Bible Word Book, it lets me know . . .
FETCH A COMPASS appears five times in KJ, and means to turn, take a roundabout course, make a circuit. The invention and wide use of the magnetic compass have caused the phrase to become ambiguous and fall into disuse. The revised versions of the Bible substitute other renderings
Bridges, R. F., & Weigle, L. A. (1997, c1994). King James Bible word book. A contemporary dictionary of curious and archaic words found in the King James Version of the Bible. (electronic ed.) (134). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


The problem is . . . why even look in that book? A modern reader thinks they understand what the KJV is saying . . . unless they know the history of the compass and that it didn't exist yet.

The CT emerges onto the scene around the close of the 19th century, and this plethora of new versions, largely within the last few decades.The CT and discovery of many manuscripts has made small changes. The CT only differs from the TR by 5.1%. Most changes are due to philosophy of translation, i.e. functional v. formal, or due to changes in English usage.
This would represent a period of over 1900 years of Biblical obscurity.Not at all. Again, modern version advocates don't claim this. So be careful of a straw man argument. The KJV's last revision was 1769. Now if you are 240 years old or so, then it's a perfect version for you. But English has changed much and as I pointed out above, some verses sound modern. They use modern words but pour totally different meanings into the words. That's where the biggest problems are.
I had always understood a large part of the true historical dark ages to be the product of Romanism and it's attempted refusal to allow the Bible to be placed in the hands of the common man in his own vernacular.Agreed.
While it's common knowledge that the King James translators valued, compared and even opted to use several readings of the Septuagint, The Alexandrian manuscripts still represent only 5% (as was stated in earlier) of extant manuscript evidence.I don't know if the percentage is 5% or smaller or larger. But as I stated earlier, doing an analysis by computer, the CT and TR only differ by 5.1%.

The "Alexandrian" readings are a smaller percentage, but they are also the oldest manuscripts. It's reasonable to expect that we'd have way less manuscripts from 400 A.D. or earlier than 1000 A.D. Most of the textual differences found in the TR/KJV find their manuscript evidence from 900 A.D. or later.

Because of that, majority count doesn't always mean that's the correct reading. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.
And concerning Jn1:18, and other readings, the question many of us ask:
If it's only a matter of hair-splitting, highly technical variations understood only by scholars and linguists, and there is really no difference in the variant readings, why the need to change, correct or imrove it, thus introducing confusion if not doubt and certainly non-stop debate.
(IMHO, by the way, the NIV reading of Jn1:18 is about as obtuse as it gets). I won't post the verse because of copyright.I agree somewhat. The only difference is whether there are four definite articles in John 1:18 and whether son or God is used. Other than that the Greek is identical. Now if we find that manuscript evidence goes against our previous thoughts, do we stick with what we always used? That's an argument for tradition determining truth. Do you think tradition determines truth? If we find that evidence changes what we formerly thought, we need to go with the evidence. Having said that, I don't know any different theology that people teach about the nature of Jesus or the Father whether they use a KJV or NIV or whatever.
I remember in the eighties, meeting well-intentioned believers (especially those representing seminaries) who would carry three bibles and maybe even a lexicon when they came to witness for Christ in the mission field.
Needless to say, they didn't seem to have much success. Okay, I'm outta here.

LORD BLESS!I agree with you. It's silly to do missionary word with three Bibles in hand. Use a KJV or NIV or NASB or whatever. We don't need multiple versions to witness unless you are trying to build your biceps up along the way.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Brother Mark
Apr 28th 2009, 07:22 PM
Greetings SFASH. I don't know any modern version advocate in this thread that is claiming what you just said. There was no "dark age" from 1611 till modern translations.

I do believe that many misunderstand the KJV today. But that has nothing to do with poor work by the KJV translators. That has to do with the fact that we don't speak Elizabethan English. Many words in the KJV are still words we use today, but the meaning has changed. So a modern reader may think they understand it, but actually mistunderstands it. Thus, they don't look up the word. A couple examples would help. Let's look at 2 Thessalonians 2:7 . . . What does letteth mean? A modern reader knows to just drop the teth off the back end. So what does let mean? The Greek word there, κατεχων, means to hold down or restrain. It actually means the opposite of let more-or-less.

Second example from Acts 28:13.What does fetched a compass mean? Most people would interpret this to mean that they went and got their hands on a compass to help them navigate.

Big problem though . . . the compass didn't even exist when Acts 28 happened. It was invented by the Chinese in the second century and not used for navigating the waters until the eleventh century.

If I open up my King James Bible Word Book, it lets me know . . . The problem is . . . why even look in that book? A modern reader thinks they understand what the KJV is saying . . . unless they know the history of the compass and that it didn't exist yet.The CT and discovery of many manuscripts has made small changes. The CT only differs from the TR by 5.1%. Most changes are due to philosophy of translation, i.e. functional v. formal, or due to changes in English usage.Not at all. Again, modern version advocates don't claim this. So be careful of a straw man argument. The KJV's last revision was 1769. Now if you are 240 years old or so, then it's a perfect version for you. But English has changed much and as I pointed out above, some verses sound modern. They use modern words but pour totally different meanings into the words. That's where the biggest problems are.Agreed.I don't know if the percentage is 5% or smaller or larger. But as I stated earlier, doing an analysis by computer, the CT and TR only differ by 5.1%.

The "Alexandrian" readings are a smaller percentage, but they are also the oldest manuscripts. It's reasonable to expect that we'd have way less manuscripts from 400 A.D. or earlier than 1000 A.D. Most of the textual differences found in the TR/KJV find their manuscript evidence from 900 A.D. or later.

Because of that, majority count doesn't always mean that's the correct reading. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.I agree somewhat. The only difference is whether there are four definite articles in John 1:18 and whether son or God is used. Other than that the Greek is identical. Now if we find that manuscript evidence goes against our previous thoughts, do we stick with what we always used? That's an argument for tradition determining truth. Do you think tradition determines truth? If we find that evidence changes what we formerly thought, we need to go with the evidence. Having said that, I don't know any different theology that people teach about the nature of Jesus or the Father whether they use a KJV or NIV or whatever.I agree with you. It's silly to do missionary word with three Bibles in hand. Use a KJV or NIV or NASB or whatever. We don't need multiple versions to witness unless you are trying to build your biceps up along the way.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Joe, I can't rep you so I am just copying your post to give you a big public "ATTABOY". Many words have changed meanings and I no longer speak KJV English.

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 07:23 PM
Greetings Joe,

Have you missed altogether the plain fact that men, even good Christian men can become deceived?Not at all. I think most KJVO advocates are good men who are deceived on that point.

I'm not right 100% of the time. I have errors in my thinking. I don't know where or else I'd change my view on those things. So some of my false ideas are that of a good man being deceived.

So what does that get us, Roger? That's not evidence. That's just a claim that we're all human and I agree with you about that.
Pleas notice, I am not saying condemned, but deceived. Discovering how modern translations from CT came into existance, it just makes good sense (to me at least) to discover all I can about how the CT and the so-called better, and older manuscripts came to be.

Many Blessings,
RWFair enough, Roger.

But really, it's not hard to find out about the Nestle-Aland or the Textus Receptus (and its various versions) and how they came to be the way they are.

However, the manuscripts . . . how do we discover how they came to be?

P66 is from around 200 A.D. What kind of information do you really expect to find about it's origin? Who wrote it? How educated were they?

Same with P75. It's dated 175-225 A.D. What do we know of its copyist?

Same with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

We can say the same about TR readings. The TR and KJV have the minority reading in Colossians 1:14. The oldest manuscript supporting that reading is a miniscule known as 2464. What do we really know about the origin of 2464? Who copied it? Did he need glasses? Was he bigoted in anyway? Why does he include a phrase that no earlier manuscript has? It's not likely we'll ever know the answers to those questions about 2464 or any of the other manuscripts I just mentioned.

I agree it makes sense to find out as much as we can. My conclusion is that the KJVO view is plagued by conspiracy thinking and unfortunately, I think takes omnipotence from God and transfers it to Satan.

In KJVO thinking, God is locked in at 1611. He hasn't done a thing since then except preserve that version. All the while God has supposedly let Satan run amock and deceive his church like crazy with modern versions. That's the story I'm told. Who's really the omnipotent one in that story? Are the gates of Hell prevailing. Yes, they are. They are advancing in KJVO theology.

In modern advocate theology, the KJV is a wonderful translation. God has used it mightily. However, English has evolved. Manuscript discoveries have been made that make for minor changes -- none of which changes any theology (unless you're a snake handler). God is triumphing. Satan is losing. Cults can't use the modern version because they make the deity of Jesus much clearer in too many passages. Since 1611, the light has advanced and keeps on advancing.

If you like the KJV and don't misunderstand it, then that is great. If you misunderstand it because of the change in word meanings, then use an NKJV or some other modern version.

Grace & peace to you, Roger.

Joe

tgallison
Apr 28th 2009, 08:11 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2057939]

I want to make a special emphasis on the last point I made.

Modern translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. are translated by orthodox, conservative, Evangelical Christians.

Yes I agree with this. Are you saying they can't be wrong. Remember the Church led us to the Vatican, and the infallible Pope, and the worship of Mary. Thank God he gave us the King James Bible, so that the unlearned might know the truth.


In order to hold your charge that they teach heresy or are heretical, or whatever your view is on this, you are now spending money on a book to espouse your view of John 1:18, that was written by a single individual (so that's not much yet to back up your point) I spent the money to get an English translation that might reveal some understanding of those in the Eighteenth Century and how they translated the Alexandrian Text. This is the only translation of its kind that I could find from the Eighteenth Century. There is also one from the 19th Century produced by H.T. Anderson from a Copy of Sinaiticus he received from Tischendorf.

who is himself, a heretic.Yes, isn't it amazing Joe, how many of these promoters of the Alexandrian Texts, are themselves Arians and unbelievers of the Deity of Christ. In my examination of the Manuscripts, this point jumps out at you continually.

William Whiston (1667-1752)

In 1707 he was Boyle lecturer (http://www.answers.com/topic/boyle-lectures). For several years Whiston continued to write and preach both on mathematical and theological subjects with considerable success; but his study of the Apostolic Constitutions (http://www.answers.com/topic/apostolic-constitutions) had convinced him that Arianism (http://www.answers.com/topic/arianism) was the creed of the early church. For Whiston, to form an opinion and to publish it were things almost simultaneous. His heterodoxy soon became notorious, and in 1710 he was deprived of his professorship (http://www.answers.com/topic/professor) and expelled from the university after a well-publicized hearing. The rest of his life was spent in incessant controversy — theological (http://www.answers.com/topic/theology), mathematical, chronological (http://www.answers.com/topic/chronology), and miscellaneous. Because of his Arianism, Whiston was never invited to be a member of the Royal Society (http://www.answers.com/topic/royal-society), due probably to (Isaac) Newton's feelings about him after he published his unorthodox views.

In 1736 he caused widespread anxiety among London's citizen when he predicted the world would end on October 16th of that year because a comet (http://www.answers.com/topic/comet) would hit the earth; the Archbishop of Canterbury (http://www.answers.com/topic/archbishop-of-canterbury), William Wake (http://www.answers.com/topic/william-wake-1), had to officially deny this prediction to ease the public.



Step out of the argument and look at this from the view of an outsider as much as you can.

Does this not look strange to you that you are quoting a heretic to bolster your position that translations by orthodox Evangelicals are heretical?Joe I am looking for the truth, it is not my fault that the foundation fathers of the Critical Text were heretics.


Grace & peace to you. Please give up your war on modern translations.It is not a war on modern translations, as it is a war for the Truth.

Praise God, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 09:51 PM
Yes, isn't it amazing Joe, how many of these promoters of the Alexandrian Texts, are themselves Arians and unbelievers of the Deity of Christ. In my examination of the Manuscripts, this point jumps out at you continually.Really?
1) Where's your documentation for that?
2) How'd you come to this conclusion?
3) How come the Alexandrian texts don't teach Arianism?
4) And why do the JW's, the true Arians of today, only want to use the NWT or the KJV and won't touch any modern version (this is another one of those questions I keep asking and you never answer -- maybe this time)?

TrustGzus
Apr 28th 2009, 10:21 PM
Yes, isn't it amazing Joe, how many of these promoters of the Alexandrian Texts, are themselves Arians and unbelievers of the Deity of Christ. In my examination of the Manuscripts, this point jumps out at you continually.Terrell, the more I think about this quote from you, the more amazed I am that you said this. Could you provide a list of promoters that are Arians and deny the deity of Jesus?

I own multiple works by Westcott. He so clearly teaches the trinity and the deity of Jesus, that attempts to claim otherwise by the KJVO adherents to me are purely a joke. It clearly shows they are quoting secondary sources and haven't read Westcott himself.

It's also amazing to me that you make this claim when not only will only the JW's, today's Arians, use only the KJV, but not modern versions, same with other cultic groups like the Way International and the Mormons.

In fact, Ron Rhoades, who prefers the NASB and NIV over the KJV, states in his book Reasoning From the Scriptures with the Mormons page 34 . . .
Don’t try using your New American Standard Bible or New International Version with a Mormon. You will need to use the King James Version since this is the version officially accepted and exclusively used by the Mormon church. (Throughout this book, all Scripture quotations will be from the King James Version.)Arians and other cultists hate the modern versions that use Alexandrian reading. The cults like the KJV.

Again, I'm not saying the KJV is bad. I've consistently said it's a great translation whose time is past. But claiming proponents of the Alexandrian texts are Arians and deniers of the deity of Jesus . . . oh man.

I'm curious what the next thing you type will be.

tgallison
Apr 28th 2009, 11:21 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2058230]Terrell, the more I think about this quote from you, the more amazed I am that you said this. Could you provide a list of promoters that are Arians and deny the deity of Jesus?

Well for starters you made this statement yesterday.

"Am I misunderstanding you? Are you claiming Tischendorf manufactured Sinaiticus? And Ephraemi Rescriptus? There's history on Ephraemi Rescriptus that pre-dates Tischendorf by 300 years."

So I replied with one of the men that had first hands at trying to transcribe Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, who was Wettstein.

But in Bentley's Biography there is no mention of Wettstein collating the Codex Ephraemi, only that Wettstein assisted him for four years in some Critical study of which no mention is made of Codex Ephraemi. It is also charged of Wettstein that he did not believe in the Deity of Christ. This is apparent if you read his biography.

And then today you asked why I bought a book written by a heretic, and my answer was that he was the only one that transcribed these Alexandrian texts into English from the 18th Century.


I own multiple works by Westcott. He so clearly teaches the trinity and the deity of Jesus, that attempts to claim otherwise by the KJVO adherents to me are purely a joke. It clearly shows they are quoting secondary sources and haven't read Westcott himself.Joe if you have much of a knowledge about Westcott and Hort you would know that Westcott had the connections and Hort had the intellect. A friend of theirs by the name of Vance Smith was on the translation committee with them, and it could be said he was an Ayrian, and at the least, he didn't believe in the Deity of Christ. The work of translation was authorized by the Queen and both houses of Parliment to the end that it was merely to moderize some of the words of the King James and have absolutely the minimum number of changes. When Parlament tried to have Vance Smith removed from the translation committee because he didn't believe in the Deity of Christ, Westcott & Hort refused. In the end, though the work to translate it was authorized, the translation itself was not.

Peace in Christ, Terrell

Izdaari
Apr 29th 2009, 11:09 AM
subscribing....

IMINXTC
Apr 30th 2009, 04:05 PM
Joe, I can't rep you so I am just copying your post to give you a big public "ATTABOY". Many words have changed meanings and I no longer speak KJV English.

Well, if Jn 1:18 becomes a test verse concerning the discrepancy between the CT and AV, as presented in the OP, and the answer is that its simply a matter of English usage, I am now more than ever determined to hold to the King's English.

I've always considered it wrong to hold a legalistic or condemning position on the AV, but the CT represents a scuttling of the MT and the RT in lieu of an overwhelming dependence on Aleph, Sinaiticus and a few others, all cloaked in secrecy and intrigue. Today's result is a multiple-choice reading of Jn 1:18, obscure and confusing to the average reader. The context of John centers upon the "Son." If the word of God is infallible and pure, that word concerning the manifestation of God in the flesh, (1Tm 3:16) becomes paramount in importance.

So, I greatly appreciate this thread, as it has compelled me to hold fast to the AV and to use my influence to warn against new versions.

No reps for me, HAHA:)

Brother Mark
Apr 30th 2009, 04:58 PM
Well, if Jn 1:18 becomes a test verse concerning the discrepancy between the CT and AV, as presented in the OP, and the answer is that its simply a matter of English usage, I am now more than ever determined to hold to the King's English.

I've always considered it wrong to hold a legalistic or condemning position on the AV, but the CT represents a scuttling of the MT and the RT in lieu of an overwhelming dependence on Aleph, Sinaiticus and a few others, all cloaked in secrecy and intrigue. Today's result is a multiple-choice reading of Jn 1:18, obscure and confusing to the average reader. The context of John being centered upon the "Son." If the word of God is infallible and pure, that word concerning the manifestation of God in the flesh, (1Tm 3:16) becomes paramount in importance.

So, I greatly appreciate this thread, as it has compelled me to hold fast to the AV and to use my influence to warn against new versions.

No reps for me, HAHA:)

I've grown spiritually far more since I changed from KJV to NASB.

tgallison
Apr 30th 2009, 05:49 PM
[quote=TrustGzus; Arians and other cultists hate the modern versions that use Alexandrian reading. The cults like the KJV.

Arians and Unitarians are the ones that give us the new translations.

It was Hort that pushed for a Unitarian on the translation committee.

It was Hort that didn’t believe in creation according to Genesis. He believed in evolution. He gave his daughter a book from Darwin, I believe it was upon some graduation of her’s, but don’t hold me to the exactness of that. It has been some time since I read his letters.

The following was easier to find--

Hort stipulated that Tischendorf was going to find him material.--

Wrote Dr. Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions.” Hort, Vol. I, p 250.

Hort stipulated his determination to have 1 John 5:7 removed from the Bible.--
May 14, 1870 -- to Rev. J.Ll. Davies -- On The Trinity
"No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favor of delay. Of course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory… I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done, I should prefer to wait a few years." Hort, Vol. II, p. 128.

The forerunners of Hort from the 18th Century, J.J. Wettstein and William Whiston had something in common. They were rejected by scholars and theologians alike. They both lost their jobs at prestigious schools because of their Arian beliefs. They both wanted to rewrite the Bible with the Alexandrian Texts.


Today they would not be rejected. They would be held up by their peers as free-thinkers, their diversity would be praised in the highest order, their humanism adored.


In the 18th Century they were not so much into diversity. They produced no books saying Susie has two moms, nor did they have to dwell on what constitutes a family.


I love Gays, but I hate their sin. That is something that is very hard to keep a clear perspective on.


I love Hort, he was a very moral family man as far as I can ascertain, according to his letters. I hate what he accomplished with our Bible.



In Jesus Christ, Terrell

tgallison
Apr 30th 2009, 06:02 PM
I've grown spiritually far more since I changed from KJV to NASB.

That is excellent, but it has no bearing on whether the new translations are correct. My argument is not with what translation you use, it is with the people who have changed the Word to read to their thoughts.

I am concerned for the future. What will our Bible look like in a hundred years if the Lord tarries. Your grandchildren will be reading the NIV, or perhaps something far worse. Do you hold that the NIV is an accurate translation of the Word.

The Bible so fits like a glove, and some of the fingers are already missing.

Peace in Christ, Terell

Dani H
Apr 30th 2009, 06:11 PM
I've enjoyed this thread immensely. One of the most decent, respectful and gracious debate threads I have seen here in a long time. Kudos to all of you. :hug:

Side note:

Truth isn't a document, it's a Person. His name is Jesus. :)

RabbiKnife
Apr 30th 2009, 06:44 PM
That is excellent, but it has no bearing on whether the new translations are correct. My argument is not with what translation you use, it is with the people who have changed the Word to read to their thoughts.

I am concerned for the future. What will our Bible look like in a hundred years if the Lord tarries. Your grandchildren will be reading the NIV, or perhaps something far worse. Do you hold that the NIV is an accurate translation of the Word.

The Bible so fits like a glove, and some of the fingers are already missing.

Peace in Christ, Terell

I have absolutely no problem with the NIV or the NASB. I have not spent much time with it, but my brief look at the ESV has been very good.

Read in context, and not taking any isolate jot or tittle out of the context of either the immediate surrounding text or the entirety of Scripture, I have found nothing in the newer translations to question or cloud any doctrinal truth.

Brother Mark
Apr 30th 2009, 08:23 PM
That is excellent, but it has no bearing on whether the new translations are correct.

One doesn't grow healthier by drinking and eating poison.


I am concerned for the future. What will our Bible look like in a hundred years if the Lord tarries.Hopefully, it will be in a language that the people of that day understand.

tgallison
May 1st 2009, 03:00 AM
[quote=RabbiKnife;2060213]I have absolutely no problem with the NIV or the NASB. I have not spent much time with it, but my brief look at the ESV has been very good.


RabbiKnife greetings

The arguments for the demise of the King James Bible have been manifold.

(1) The first being recently found older manuscripts show that the King James Bible is not accurate, due to the differences to it found in the Alexandrian Texts. I have tried to demonstrate that this is not an accurate line of reasoning since--

(a) there is no chain of evidence for them,

(b) they are the most corrected and most corrupted manuscripts ever found, and

(c) they all erupted out of the ground after the reformation.

(2) That its reading is archaic.

(a) While there is a few words that do not lend themselves to modern translation. They are truly few and far between, and can easily be conquered by those that apply themselves.

(b) The thees and thous are awkward, but become beautiful to those that take the time to envelope themselves in this beautiful book.

(3) It is a hard read, and many will be lost because they put the book down.

(a) The Bible was never intended to be an easy read. It is for seekers.

(b) If it was an easy read, you could exhaust it just like you do with a dime novel. Read it 2 or 3 times and you are now done with it. You understood everything in it.

(c) If you could live 10 lifetimes you would never exhaust this book. For Jesus Christ lives within this book, his veins intertwined throughout the pages, for the passage of his blood.


Read in context, and not taking any isolate jot or tittle out of the context of either the immediate surrounding text or the entirety of Scripture, I have found nothing in the newer translations to question or cloud any doctrinal truth.


It is more about hidden truths and displacing them. While as yet it has not changed doctrine, but only attempted to, it has discomfited the book, so that the golden nuggets of beauty are concealed, and the strength it once had is diminished.

You cannot rearrange the prepositions, conjunctions and sentence structure and expect to have a Bible inexhaustible. You are replacing God’s thoughts with man’s thoughts. Can you expect man’s thoughts to be inexhaustible? The joy and power of the Book will eventually be gone. When your growth in the Book has matched man’s thoughts it will be time for you to put it down, because you realize this is only man’s words, for you will have attained to it.

I have been thwarted time and time again trying to explain a passage to someone that has one of the new translations. The new translation is not saying the same thing, and therefore cannot be explained.

For example in the King James in Job 1:5 Job is fearful that his sons may have cursed God in their hearts. The NIV and the NASB have the same statement. This statement has to do with the thoughts of the heart and is a method of sinning.

In Job 1:22 both the KJV and the NASB have two separate clauses, and the NIV only has one.

KJV 1st clause “In all this Job sinned not.” 2nd clause “nor charged God foolishly.”

NASB 1st clause “Through all this Job did not sin.” 2nd clause “nor did he blame God.”

NIV “In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.” 1 clause-1 prep. phrase.

The NIV has taken 2 thoughts, and reduced them to one. The way the NIV has phrased this verse, it could be that Job sinned in any number of ways, just that he didn’t charge God with wrongdoing.

You might say so what. What difference does it make?

In Job 2:10 NASB “--In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” KJV is similar.

In the first two chapters of Job 2 methods of sinning are described. The first in Job 1:5 is with the heart, the second in 2:10 is with the lips.

The second one “with the lips” is the method Satan chose in his challenge to God when he said, Job will curse you to your face. With the lips as opposed to with his heart.

After the first test Job praised and worshipped God, thus you have Job sinned not. Because God knew that Job would eventually charge Him foolishly after the second test, the phrase, nor charged God foolishly was included in the statement after the first test.

That is why the singular clause, Job did not sin with his lips, is after the second test. It should be obvious to all that Job charged God foolishly after the second test, when he said, God would cover the faces of the judges and laugh at the trial of the innocent.

The NASB reading the first time is not as clear as the KJV, because it says Job did not blame God. Blaming God does not have the same meaning as charging God foolishly, which is exactly what Job did. Job knew God had allowed his distress to come upon him. Therefore blaming can merely mean that God allowed it, whereas charging God foolishly is all together different.

I do not know if you will follow this or agree, but you cannot deny that the NIV has distorted Job 1:22.

Terrell

RabbiKnife
May 1st 2009, 01:07 PM
Baloney.

I don't see it at all.

The NIV, the NASB, the ESV, any of the "modern" translations that attempt either a word for word, phrase for phrase, or even dynamic equivalence method of translation are perfectly acceptable and do nothing to diminish or change orthodox Christian doctrine. Period.

tgallison
May 1st 2009, 08:30 PM
One doesn't grow healthier by drinking and eating poison.

Hopefully, it will be in a language that the people of that day understand.

Brother Mark Greetings

I have not meant to offend those that use other translations.
I see the Bible as a beautiful lady. Your translation and my translation are both the same beautiful lady that we have all come to adore. So no matter what translation you have, it is the same beautiful lady.

We that are older and have grown up with that beautiful lady, we have gotten to know her well.

Now you have come along and met this beautiful lady. But now she has a form of cancer. It is in the early stages and cannot be seen so readily. It has not yet disfigured her, and you cannot recognize the symptoms, because you didn’t know her before. But those that new her before can see a foreshadowing of trouble.

You are offended, because in our attempt at a rememdy, you feel we are trying to steal her.

I understand and know your sorrow. Please forgive me. Terrell

TrustGzus
May 2nd 2009, 01:24 PM
It was Hort that pushed for a Unitarian on the translation committee.

It was Hort that didn’t believe in creation according to Genesis. He believed in evolution. He gave his daughter a book from Darwin, I believe it was upon some graduation of her’s, but don’t hold me to the exactness of that. It has been some time since I read his letters.

The following was easier to find--

Hort stipulated that Tischendorf was going to find him material.--

Wrote Dr. Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions.” Hort, Vol. I, p 250.

Hort stipulated his determination to have 1 John 5:7 removed from the Bible.--
May 14, 1870 -- to Rev. J.Ll. Davies -- On The Trinity
"No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favor of delay. Of course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory… I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done, I should prefer to wait a few years." Hort, Vol. II, p. 128.The entirety of what is in the above quote is a straw man argument. It all misses the reason modern translations read the way they do.

Modern translations are not translated by Unitarians (or Arians).

Modern translations don't use Westcott's and Hort's text.

Modern translations don't have 1 John 5:7 and that has nothing to do with Hort and his quote above.

Modern translations are the way they are for two reasons.


manuscript discoveries
translation philosophies

You can quote Hort and George Vance Smith till the cows come home. These men aren't the cause of anything in modern translations. If these men never existed, we'd still have over 100+ new papyri (discovered after these men anyway). We'd still have the oldest uncials that were discovered. It's manuscripts that drive the textual differences the KJV/NKJV and modern translations. And these manuscripts pre-date these men by 1500 years plus-or-minus. History discovered through archaeology was going to cause revision to the KJV whether or not these men ever existed. Someone would have done it with the discovery of these ancient manuscripts.

So bring up Unitarians, Arians, Westcott, Hort, George Vance Smith and every other name you want from the 1800's. It's all a straw man that points the finger in the wrong direction.

What men like Westcott & Hort did in assembling a new text was going to get done. The manuscripts were being discovered before them and many dug up after them. If W&H never existed, the new translations still would have happened.

Terrell, every time you bring up these men, I see a straw man and know that you have missed the point of what is the real cause of the modern translations.
The forerunners of Hort from the 18th Century, J.J. Wettstein and William Whiston had something in common. They were rejected by scholars and theologians alike. They both lost their jobs at prestigious schools because of their Arian beliefs. They both wanted to rewrite the Bible with the Alexandrian Texts.Alexandrian texts don't teach Arian beliefs. So the conclusion is a non sequitur. And for the earliest years of the Watchtower, the JW's were KJV only. So I guess if I use conspiratorial, non-sequitur reasoning, I should state the KJV teaches Arianism. Now that would be a ridiculous and unfair claim on my part. Yet, when you claim that Alexandrian readings are tied in with Arianism, we are supposed to believe that's true.

You've given no proof. Just fallacious reasoning, conspiratorial thinking and fear that Satan rules over the translation field. I offer freedom to use any Bible, KJV or other, and the omnipotent God who's controlling the situation.

It's interesting to me also that now you are trying to throw Whiston onto my side as a problem for me. Yet you brought him in originally to support your point. Another weird twist.
Today they would not be rejected. They would be held up by their peers as free-thinkers, their diversity would be praised in the highest order, their humanism adored. Really? How'd you come to this conclusion? List for me the Unitarians and Arianians who translated the NASB or ESV or NIV, et al. Jehovah's Witnesses (today's Arians) are not held up by Bible scholars and translators as free thinkers. I would imagine they seem them the opposite way. The JW's are in bondage in their thinking. They are controlled by the leadership. They aren't free thinkers.

Terrell, this claim is really a stretch. Why stretch stuff so much to make your point? It hurts your case. It doesn't help it.
In the 18th Century they were not so much into diversity. They produced no books saying Susie has two moms, nor did they have to dwell on what constitutes a family.Nothing to do with modern translations. More conspiracy thinking and fear being spread by you.
I love Gays, but I hate their sin. That is something that is very hard to keep a clear perspective on.I agree. So do my friends who've never read a KJV in their life, but have used only modern translations.
I love Hort, he was a very moral family man as far as I can ascertain, according to his letters. I hate what he accomplished with our Bible.I know you do. But I think your fear is misplaced. You attribute way too much power to Satan. You allow way too much conspiratorial thinking into your reasoning. And again, if Hort never existed, you can't erase the hundreds of manuscripts discovered. Hort didn't write these. The manuscripts pre-dated him by 1500 years give-or-take. If it wasn't Hort, someone else would have come along. Don't use these men as red herrings. Deal with the manuscripts -- all of which teach orthodoxy, not Arianism or Unitarianism.

Arianism and Unitarians have relied on the KJV, not modern translations. You try to sneak them into being a result or cause of modern translations. They used the KJV. The difference between your approach and mine is that you misstate the facts to make the Arians and/or Unitarians both the cause and effect of modern versions. The facts are they have historically relied on the KJV. And I don't use them to incriminate the KJV.

Unitarians and Arianins are neither the cause nor result of modern translations. I will add they aren't the result of the KJV either. They are the result of bad hermeneutics.

So stop using these guys. History shows they got their views while using the KJV, not modern translations. Don't re-write history to try to support your point(s).

Let me add something here. Note that I've not criticized the KJV in this post. I've asked you to give up your war on modern translations. You claim you aren't waging war on modern translations but are waging a war for truth. Well, Terrell, we can all say that, can't we? I know I can.

I think if you'd be honest with yourself, it is a war on modern translations. You are re-writing history. You're blaming Suzie and her two moms on modern translations. You are blaming Arians and Unitarians as the cause of modern translations when the modern translations don't help these groups but hinder them. All of those claims are false.

You are telling us use only the KJV. It's the only one that isn't poisoned. It's the only one without a cancer. I'm telling people to use any translation they want, including the KJV if they'd like.

The manuscript differences don't allow new doctrine. An NASB doesn't lead to different doctrine than a KJV. My primary concern is that people misunderstand the KJV due to the fact it hasn't been revised in 240 years (unless one includes the NKJV which is a revision, not a new translation as far as I'm concerned). But if someone understands it accurately, then that's great!

I don't wage war on the KJV as some misrepresent modern version advocates. If KJVO didn't exist, modern version advocates would have probably not written much at all about this subject. Modern version advocate responses are largely defensive responses against attacks leveled against modern versions. Modern version commentaries are not aggressive offensive launches against the KJV. When I point out a problem in the KJV, it's only to elicit consistency on the part of the KJVO advocate. I'm basically saying, Well, if you're going to criticize modern translation here for this reason, what do you do with the KJV here?

I'll respond to your later posts at another time. I've got a lot to do today.

Grace & peace to you, Terrell.

Joe

Olivianus
May 2nd 2009, 05:28 PM
I have had many more problems in the kjv. I did a land promise sermon at my Church a number of months ago with this verse:

Hebrews 4: 3For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The verse quoted is in the law which says "they shall not enter my rest". I prepared this message using my nasb and its readings agreed with all the Puritans that I read on this issue, mainly Owen. My pastor wanted me to use the kjv when I preached and it was a huge problem. If they shall enter my rest?! I really do not get that one of many huge problems in the kjv.

TrustGzus
May 2nd 2009, 10:50 PM
Well, if Jn 1:18 becomes a test verse concerning the discrepancy between the CT and AV, as presented in the OP, and the answer is that its simply a matter of English usage, I am now more than ever determined to hold to the King's English.I'm not sure I understand this sentence.
I've always considered it wrong to hold a legalistic or condemning position on the AV, but the CT represents a scuttling of the MT and the RT in lieu of an overwhelming dependence on Aleph, Sinaiticus and a few others, all cloaked in secrecy and intrigue.Keep in mind, CT and TR are only 5.1% different. Exposit either and you get the same doctrine. I too would consider it wrong to hold a legalistic or condemning position on the AV. I don't know anyone that really holds such a position.
Today's result is a multiple-choice reading of Jn 1:18, obscure and confusing to the average reader. The context of John centers upon the "Son." If the word of God is infallible and pure, that word concerning the manifestation of God in the flesh, (1Tm 3:16) becomes paramount in importance.Actually, I think the prologue center on Jesus being God, rather than Son. The Word was God (John 1:1). The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (verse 14). Thus, God came in the flesh and dwelt among us. Thus, I think the CT going with older manuscripts makes a lot of sense in verse 18 as it continues to emphasize his deity over his sonship.

The CT and TR are both very clear that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. No modern version advocate would say the TR or KJV teach otherwise. However, some hardcore KJV fans might say that about modern versions, but it's simply not an accurate claim.

There's only one word different between the TR and the CT in John 1:18. The reading in modern versions of God instead of Son, is not only supported by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but by p66 and p75 which both pre-date Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by 200 years! The rendering found in the KJV has no papyri to support it (papyri are the most important witnesses). It has one early uncial to support it -- Codex Alexandrinus (about 450 AD), which is a very good witness. However, other uncials that support it are much later:


Codex Sangallensis (9th century)
Codex Koridethi (9th century)
Codex Athous Laurae (8th-9th century)

Without any earlier support, the TR/KJV rendering is very late. If that was the original, wouldn't you think as they discover papyri and other uncials that Son would find more support?

It's also in Codex Washingtonianus I is a 4th-5th century witness that has the KJV reading. However, the John 1 portion was added by a later handed a couple centuries later by a hand other than the original. So we're still back to the 7th century or so.

If there is anything that confuses modern readers in John 1:18, it isn't whether the word God or Son is used, it's that John 1:18 claims that no one has seen God at any time. That confuses some people as they think of certain passages where God appeared to people in Theophanies or Christophanies. But this "problem" passage is in all versions -- KJV included.
So, I greatly appreciate this thread, as it has compelled me to hold fast to the AV and to use my influence to warn against new versions.Nothing wrong with holding to the AV, but what compels you to warn against new versions? They teach:


the bodily resurrection of Jesus
we're saved by grace alone through faith alone by Jesus alone
the Bible is the Word of God
Jesus was virgin born
Jesus is fully human/fully God
Trinity
Jesus is coming again to establish is kingdom

Do you see a need to warn people against these doctrines?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
May 2nd 2009, 11:26 PM
Brother Mark Greetings

I have not meant to offend those that use other translations.
I see the Bible as a beautiful lady. Your translation and my translation are both the same beautiful lady that we have all come to adore. So no matter what translation you have, it is the same beautiful lady.I agree.
We that are older and have grown up with that beautiful lady, we have gotten to know her well.Agree.
Now you have come along and met this beautiful lady. But now she has a form of cancer. It is in the early stages and cannot be seen so readily. It has not yet disfigured her, and you cannot recognize the symptoms, because you didn’t know her before. But those that new her before can see a foreshadowing of trouble.I knew her before. And for many years I used the KJV. Foreshadowing of trouble is a slippery slope fallacy. Since Westcott's & Hort's Greek text, the current Greek text (Nestle-Aland) has moved slightly closer to the KJV in that it has accepted some Byzantine readings that W&H did not. This shows that scholarship moves wherever the evidence leads including towards a Byzantine reading if the evidence goes that way. So where will we be in 100 years? Probably in a place not much different than we are now. It isn't much different today than it was 100 years ago. Very few changes despite hundreds of new manuscripts. No changes affecting doctrine.

I think the doctor misdiagnosed. There is no cancer.

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2009, 12:14 AM
Long post unfortunately means a long reply.
The arguments for the demise of the King James Bible have been manifold.

(1) The first being recently found older manuscripts show that the King James Bible is not accurate, due to the differences to it found in the Alexandrian Texts. I have tried to demonstrate that this is not an accurate line of reasoning since--

(a) there is no chain of evidence for them,

(b) they are the most corrected and most corrupted manuscripts ever found, and

(c) they all erupted out of the ground after the reformation.In response to (a), older manuscripts will have less of a chain. We will have more manuscripts that date from 900 AD or later. They've several less centuries to dissolve away. Besides, in this thread, John 1:18 has been the focus. We have two very early uncials and now two very early papyri that support the modern translations. The chain is growing.

In response to (B), just because they are corrected, doesn't make them bad. You are assuming the correction itself is correct. Many times the correction is many centuries later and it is "corrected" to match a Byzantine reading. By whose authority did these correctors correct? They are centuries more removed. You've assumed the much later correctors are correct over the original copyist from centuries earlier without providing evidence. You're using circular reasoning. You need evidence. If the Byzantine or TR readings are correct, earlier manuscripts should contain these readings. If they are discovered, modern Bibles will revert. If they are not discovered, then it's more reasonable to assume the TR or Byzantine readings were changed and it is they that need the correcting.

In response to (C), what does it matter when they were dug up? Why is the reformation some sort of line in the sand? This is a non sequitur argument you've presented.
(2) That its reading is archaic.

(a) While there is a few words that do not lend themselves to modern translation. They are truly few and far between, and can easily be conquered by those that apply themselves.

(b) The thees and thous are awkward, but become beautiful to those that take the time to envelope themselves in this beautiful book. I agree with (a) sort of. People can look them up. But why should they have to? Are you telling me that a more modern rendition cannot be done? This argument works against the KJV itself. Why did the KJV itself even have to be translated? Why not use Wycliffe's version? Language changes. It's reasonable to update the English of the Bible to match the English of the times.

I agree with (b). But both (a) and (b) miss the real point of the problem. The real problem isn't archaic words and thees and thous. The biggest problems are words that we use today but the meaning has changed such as let or fetch a compass. The 21st century reader can read these passages and because these are words in our current venacular, they most often will not even realize that they are misintepreting them. Why look up let? People think they know what it means. Why look up fetched a compass? People think they know what that means. The fact is in most cases, people don't know what those words mean in a KJV.
(3) It is a hard read, and many will be lost because they put the book down.

(a) The Bible was never intended to be an easy read. It is for seekers.

(b) If it was an easy read, you could exhaust it just like you do with a dime novel. Read it 2 or 3 times and you are now done with it. You understood everything in it.

(c) If you could live 10 lifetimes you would never exhaust this book. For Jesus Christ lives within this b ook, his veins intertwined throughout the pages, for the passage of his blood.In regard to (a), how did you come to this conclusion that it wasn't intended to be easy? God made salvation very easy -- believe. Why should he make the communicating of that message difficult? If the goal is to save people, God would make the message easy to understand, not difficult. I think he has. I think the KJV was not a hard read in its day. It is now, but not then.

In regard to (b), while the main points are not hard, some things are hard. It's true we can't exhaust it. The Bible in some sense is easy, in other senses it is not. The point here is should we make it harder than it needs to be? Why use English that is 240 years old? It's too bad the KJV got locked in at 1769. It shouldn't have stopped at the 1769 revision. They should have kept revising it. Because they waited so long, unfortunately, the NKJV had to be its own translation. It's really just the 1982 version of the KJV. If they had done revisions every 20-30 years, we wouldn't be having this part of the discussion.

I agree with (c). This doesn't apply to the KJV only. This applies to any version. You won't exhaust the NASB, ESV, NIV or whatever.

Honestly, out of your points (1), (2) and (3), (2) and (3) aren't that different. Point (3), i.e. that it is hard to read has to do with (2), i.e. that the English is archaic. The archaic English is primarily what makes the KJV a harder read. So you really only have two points.
It is more about hidden truths and displacing them. While as yet it has not changed doctrine, but only attempted to, it has discomfited the book, so that the golden nuggets of beauty are concealed, and the strength it once had is diminished.False. No doctrines have been attempted to be changed. The modern versions are clearer on the deity of Jesus in 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, John 1:18 and Romans 9:5 for starters.

The only version that has really done changes is the New World Translation. But that's a whole other subject.
You cannot rearrange the prepositions, conjunctions and sentence structure and expect to have a Bible inexhaustible. You are replacing God’s thoughts with man’s thoughts. Can you expect man’s thoughts to be inexhaustible? The joy and power of the Book will eventually be gone. When your growth in the Book has matched man’s thoughts it will be time for you to put it down, because you realize this is only man’s words, for you will have attained to it.Same rules for both KJV and modern versions.
I have been thwarted time and time again trying to explain a passage to someone that has one of the new translations. The new translation is not saying the same thing, and therefore cannot be explained.What about those that are thwarted by the archaic-ness of the KJV? I think there is more of that than what you are claiming -- unless you are talking about an extreme paraphrase or extremely functional translation. But that's comparing apples-and-oranges.

I'm not going to bother with the whole section on Job. I don't see any benefit or point.

Bottom line -- John 1:18 hasn't exposed a thing about the CT or new translations. It's exposed the desperations of those who are KJVO.

Read your Bible every single day. I don't care if it is a KJV. That's fine. I would be concerned if their choice is the NWT. Other than that, if they read everything in context, they will have a clear understanding of essential Christian theology.

God rules over translation history, not Satan. I think that is one of my biggest concerns about KJVO. God is demoted. Satan is promoted . . . unintentionally, but it's the truth. God hasn't done a thing since 1611. In another sense he did nothing until 1611. Some verses have a unique rendering in the KJV that no one saw prior to 1611. Doesn't add up to me.

Grace & peace to everyone,

Joe

tgallison
May 3rd 2009, 01:29 AM
I have had many more problems in the kjv. I did a land promise sermon at my Church a number of months ago with this verse:

Hebrews 4: 3For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The verse quoted is in the law which says "they shall not enter my rest". I prepared this message using my nasb and its readings agreed with all the Puritans that I read on this issue, mainly Owen. My pastor wanted me to use the kjv when I preached and it was a huge problem. If they shall enter my rest?! I really do not get that one of many huge problems in the kjv.

Greetings Olivianus

I am a little confused. Perhaps you can explain where the NASB found the words, "They shall not". What negative word in the Greek could the “They shall not” come from?

One of the Cardinal rules of the CT is to favor the reading that is the most difficult. It looks like perhaps they broke this rule in doing the English translation.

Hebrews 4:3 “For we who have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.”
William Whiston’s English translation according to the Alexandrinus. 1745 The only English translation from the Alexandrinus that seems to be available.

Hebrews 4:3 “For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.”
King James Bible English translation according to the Received Text. 1611

There appears to be no difference between the NA27/UBS4 and the Byzantine/Majority Text, so again I would ask where did the negative come from?

I agree it would be an easier read, but if they do not see the word, should they add it for ease of reading?

Best regards, Terrell

tgallison
May 3rd 2009, 01:45 AM
[quote=TrustGzus;2062243].Actually, I think the prologue center on Jesus being God, rather than Son. The Word was God (John 1:1). The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (verse 14). Thus, God came in the flesh and dwelt among us. Thus, I think the CT going with older manuscripts makes a lot of sense in verse 18 as it continues to emphasize his deity over his sonship.

The CT and TR are both very clear that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. No modern version advocate would say the TR or KJV teach otherwise. However, some hardcore KJV fans might say that about modern versions, but it's simply not an accurate claim.

There's only one word different between the TR and the CT in John 1:18. The reading in modern versions of God instead of Son, is not only supported by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus,

Joe greetings

How do you account for Tischendorf's rendering in his eighth edition? He collated everyone of the Alexandrian Texts.

His collations are the ones Westcott and Hort, as well as Aland used. They were the only ones readable for the most part.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:18 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Strong's Numbers (http://t8s.biblos.com/john/1.htm)
θεὸν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2316.htm) οὐδεὶς (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3762.htm) ἑώρακεν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3708.htm) πώποτε· (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4455.htm) ὁ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm) μονογενὴς (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3439.htm) υἱὸς (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5207.htm) ὁ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm) ὢν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1510.htm) εἰς (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1519.htm) τὸν (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm) κόλπον (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2859.htm) τοῦ (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm) πατρός, (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3962.htm) ἐκεῖνος (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1565.htm) ἐξηγήσατο. (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1834.htm)


Truth and grace, Terrell

TrustGzus
May 3rd 2009, 10:57 PM
How do you account for Tischendorf's rendering in his eighth edition? He collated everyone of the Alexandrian Texts.

His collations are the ones Westcott and Hort, as well as Aland used. They were the only ones readable for the most part.First, what Tischendorf did in his 8th edition is of minor significance to me. I have his 8th edition for reference. Tischendorf's 8th edition is a collated text just like W&H, just like Nestle-Aland, just like all five editions of Erasmus, Stephanus' editions, et al.

Listen to me clearly on this, Terrell, as you seem to keep missing this point or totally ignoring it and dealing with the straw man. What men in the 19th century did or thought is of very little significance to me. Emphasizing them doesn't put a dent in my thinking or my argument.

Tischendorf's text is not a manuscript. Thus, it is not evidence for what the original reading was.

Secondly, it is categorically false that Tischendorf collated every Alexandrian text. That might have been true in his day. But more have been dug up since his day. He died in 1874. P66 & p75 (which support the modern reading of John 1:18) weren't discovered until 1952. So he obviously never looked at them.

Also, he only got a very limited look at Vaticanus. He and Tragelles only got to look at it for a few hours. Wikipedia states he only got to look at 25 readings. Other men supplied him a few more readings over the years giving him a few hundred more, but there is nothing that demonstrates he had a good working knowledge of Vaticanus like he did Sinaiticus.

So, here is the deal. We know Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75 read the way modern versions do, i.e. God not son. Tischendorf didn't have p66 nor p75. Plus, it's very possible that he never got to see Vaticanus on this passage. That leaves Tischendorf with only Sinaiticus. Well . . . if all I had was one manuscript, I'd stick with the majority reading also which is what is found in the TR.

That's probably why he did what he did. Today, we have Vaticanus for sure (I've seen the reading myself). Plus we have two papyri that pre-date Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by 200 years that confirm their readings. We're in a much better position to evaluate the ancient evidence than Tischendorf.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

tgallison
May 4th 2009, 12:50 AM
[quote=TrustGzus;2062900]

Tischendorf's text is not a manuscript. Thus, it is not evidence for what the original reading was.

You are saying Tischendorf couldn't read the difference between Son and God?


Secondly, it is categorically false that Tischendorf collated every Alexandrian text. That might have been true in his day. But more have been dug up since his day. He died in 1874. P66 & p75 (which support the modern reading of John 1:18) weren't discovered until 1952. So he obviously never looked at them.

Your statement that P66 & P75 were found in 1952 is actually not correct, unless you have some proof that it was found. I think what you meant to say was that it was bought in 1952.

The manuscripts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript) were covertly assembled by a Cypriote, Phokio Tano of Cairo, then successively smuggled to Switzerland,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_papyri#cite_note-0) where they were bought by Martin Bodmer (1899-1971)

DO YOU KNOW? much about Constantine Simonides

The greatest forger of the last century was undoubtedly Constantine Simonides, a Greek, who was born in 1824. To meet the requirements of modern critics, who know styles of writing, the colours of the ink and paints of different times, and the very kinds of parchment used, there is need of such a combination of intellect with versatility, industry with ingenuity, as is rarely found. Yet, as even Juvenal could instance the audacity of the Graeculus esuriens, so in modern times that mixed race has shown many of the qualities which, when perverted to a base use, produce the skilled forger. Simonides started by becoming a citizen of the world. From 1843 on, we find him successively on the shores of the Euxine, in Asia Minor, Thrace, Athos (where he wrote a hagiography), the Aegean, Cyprus, Alexandria, Cairo, Sinai (1844), Syria, Babylon, Persia, Russia, and Constantinople (in 1846). His next journeys were from Greece to Constantinople again, Odessa, St. Petersburg, and Germany ; then again to Egypt, the Aegean coasts, and finally to Liverpool (in 1853) and London. His stock-in-trade was a large number both of genuine MSS., obtained largely from Mount Athos, and of forged ones written by himself ; and his custom was to present first some genuine ones, and when his customer was off his guard, some of the second sort ; while he paid England and Germany the dubious compliment of selecting them as the field of his operations, as possessing either the largest amount of hard cash, or the greatest number of probable dupes. Even in 1846 he is stated to have been in possession of 5000 MSS., which he exhibited to savants at Athens.


Also, he only got a very limited look at Vaticanus. He and Tragelles only got to look at it for a few hours. Wikipedia states he only got to look at 25 readings. Other men supplied him a few more readings over the years giving him a few hundred more, but there is nothing that demonstrates he had a good working knowledge of Vaticanus like he did Sinaiticus.

How did Tischendorf do the first reliable edition of the Vaticanus, even better that Cardinal Mai, who was the Vatican Librarian for 15 years? Was it by sneeking peeks?

Tischendorf 1867 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-t.html#tischendorf1867) was the first reliable edition of the manuscript to be published. It was preceded by that of Cardinal Mai (see Mai 1857 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-m.html#mai1857),

To much fuzziness about the whole thing to suit me.

TrustGzus
May 4th 2009, 02:17 AM
You are saying Tischendorf couldn't read the difference between Son and God?Not even close to what I was saying. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.
Your statement that P66 & P75 were found in 1952 is actually not correct, unless you have some proof that it was found. I think what you meant to say was that it was bought in 1952.They were discovered in 1952 unless you have better proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_Papyri).
The manuscripts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript) were covertly assembled by a Cypriote, Phokio Tano of Cairo, then successively smuggled to Switzerland,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_papyri#cite_note-0) where they were bought by Martin Bodmer (1899-1971)Read the wikipedia article you quote more carefully. The article states two times that they were discovered in 1952. In fact, it states it in the sentence immediately before the one you quoted.

Tischendorf never handled, nor knew about p66 and p75.

tgallison
May 4th 2009, 10:02 AM
[quote=TrustGzus;2063050]Not even close to what I was saying. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.

Then you are saying Tischendorf does know the difference between Son and God. Tischendorf read Son in John 1:18


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_Papyri)They were discovered in 1952 unless you have better proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodmer_Papyri).Read the wikipedia article you quote more carefully. The article states two times that they were discovered in 1952. In fact, it states it in the sentence immediately before the one you quoted.

If you call someone covertly pedaling manuscripts at your door in Switzerland, finding them, OK. They don't even say who Bodmer bought them from.

What they say is someone covertly assembled them, and then someone smuggled them to Switzerland, and we don't have any dates when it was covertly assembled, or any date when it was smuggled. For all we know it might have been covertly assembled in 1843.


Tischendorf never handled, nor knew about p66 and p75.

How do you know that? Hort sent Tischendorf to buy some manuscripts for him. Those papyrus may have among those of Simonides that he didn't sell.


DO YOU KNOW? much about Constantine Simonides

The greatest forger of the last century was undoubtedly Constantine Simonides, a Greek, who was born in 1824. To meet the requirements of modern critics, who know styles of writing, the colours of the ink and paints of different times, and the very kinds of parchment used, there is need of such a combination of intellect with versatility, industry with ingenuity, as is rarely found. Yet, as even Juvenal could instance the audacity of the Graeculus esuriens, so in modern times that mixed race has shown many of the qualities which, when perverted to a base use, produce the skilled forger. Simonides started by becoming a citizen of the world. From 1843 on, we find him successively on the shores of the Euxine, in Asia Minor, Thrace, Athos (where he wrote a hagiography), the Aegean, Cyprus, Alexandria, Cairo, Sinai (1844), Syria, Babylon, Persia, Russia, and Constantinople (in 1846). His next journeys were from Greece to Constantinople again, Odessa, St. Petersburg, and Germany ; then again to Egypt, the Aegean coasts, and finally to Liverpool (in 1853) and London. His stock-in-trade was a large number both of genuine MSS., obtained largely from Mount Athos, and of forged ones written by himself ; and his custom was to present first some genuine ones, and when his customer was off his guard, some of the second sort ; while he paid England and Germany the dubious compliment of selecting them as the field of his operations, as possessing either the largest amount of hard cash, or the greatest number of probable dupes. Even in 1846 he is stated to have been in possession of 5000 MSS., which he exhibited to savants at Athens.

Best regards Terrell

BadDog
May 4th 2009, 03:02 PM
In 1901 the English Text in John 1:18 read--

American Standard Version
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the

bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

What has the Critical Text supporters changed?

1. They changed Son to God.
2. They changed begotten to only or unique.
3. They changed in the bosom to close to the Father’s side.
4. They changed declared to explained.
Terrell,

Let me preface this by saying that IMO the ASV-1901 was a very good translation. I like it. I was involved in a revision of it into a modern MT translation - the WEB. But the translators of the ASV-1901 did not have all the tools of modern scholarship to bring to bear on this verse.

The ASV-1901 was based upon the critical text (Westcott-Hort), but the CT was still fairly recent, and the translators did consider other than just the older MSS (CT). So they translated μονογενὴς as "begotten" rather than as "only" or "unique" which modern Greek experts say is the correct meaning because they did not have as clear an understanding of the meaning of μονογενὴς at the time as we do now. They also selected "Son" (υἱος) vs. "God" (θεὸς), which is basing their selection on the majority text rather than the CT. The HCSB, which came out in about 2002 and is based upon the CT, also translated it as "Son." So there is some (strong) division of thought on this. Some of the CT MSS also have υἱος ("Son").

But they did not change "Son" to "God" or "begotten" to "only or unique." They did not change "in the bosom" to "by the Father's side" or "declared" to "explained." They are basing those decisions upon lexicons. μονογενὴς does mean "unique" or "only." γενὴς does not mean "born" (noun), as translators as recent as a hundred years ago thought.

Now regarding translating "εἰς τὸν κόλπον" - "in the bosom" or "in intimate proximity" as "close to the Father's side"... what's the big concern here? Do we use "bosom" today? ... with the same meaning as say 100 or more years ago? No. So shouldn't we prefer to translate it so that the meaning of being in intimate proximity (my words - but that's the idea) comes across clearly? The Greek term does not mean just "bosom" but has the idea of the front of the garment. IOW, the person is very close to someone else... they're in hugable distance. :P I don't see the big deal here. Perhaps it could be expressed in more intimate terms, and I would prefer that as well, but what was written is accurate, just not as poetic. Is there a modern term meaning essentially to be within the arms of someone? That would be a good way or translating. But the NASB translated very accurately here.


OK, here's the Greek text:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

ἐξηγέομαι has the idea of "leading out, to be the leader" or "to draw out, as in a narrative; to unfold a teaching." It means "to interpret things which are typically sacred or divine, or perhaps to explain a dream." IOW, the idea is not simply "to declare" something or someone... but "to interpret or explain." Now the term can be used to mean simply "to recount the details" of something, but we have other Greek words which mean simply "to report" or "declare," and the apostle John used those terms in 1 John 1. He did not use them here, and IMO that is significant. We lose the significance of the word with such a translation. Translating it as "declare Him" misses out on the nuances of the Greek here. The modern translations have done a superior job of getting to the essence.

So IMO "to explain" is better than simply "to declare." And most translators seem to agree with me here, as do the lexicons. For example, in 1 John 1:2 John says that "we testify and declare to you..." The Greek word there is ἀπαγγέλλομεν. If John had meant simply "to declare" he would have used ἀπαγγέλλομεν in John 1:18, as he did in 1 John 1:2 and 3. In 1 John 1:5 John used a similar word, ἀναγγέλλομεν - the idea of "reporting" or "declaring." But it is the Son who is "explaining" the Father in John 1:18, so John chose a different word (ἐξηγέομαι - "to lead out or explain." ἐξ [ἐκ] means "out.") which has the idea of more than just "declaring." So the NASB captured the intended idea of the Son "explaining" or "interpreting" the Father to the world.


FWIW, as I see it the NASB and the HCSB and other modern translations did a good job of translating John 1:18. How is the ASV-1901 better than the NASB? The only real issue is whether we should have "Son" or "God," but that is a matter of textual criticism. I can offer an opinion on that, but that is just what it would be - an opinion, and I'm still not completely sure about what it should probably be there.

For example, if you consider what the Majority Text Society says about this (http://www.majoritytext.org/newsletter2.htm), they also are unsure about whether it should be "Son" or "God." Here's what Dr. JK Elliott, a MT adherrant, says on this:

Is Jesus described at the end of the Johannine Prologue as 'God' or as 'Son'? This well-known text-critical problem is drawn to many Bible readers' attention by its being included in the marginal notes to many a modern version. Also, it is thoroughly debated in learned commentaries. The textual evidence is clearly set out in modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The apparatus does not need repeating in extenso here, suffice it to say that the issue boils down to whether the original reading was 'God' with or without the article as read in our earliest surviving witnesses (P66 P75 Sin B C) or 'Son' with the majority of manuscripts. The Patristic writers know both readings, and some fathers sometimes use the form with 'God' [and] sometimes the form with 'Son' when citing this verse in their writings.

If we cannot resolve the variant using internal or external criteria what is to be done?

Theologians traditionally expect textual critics to pronounce categorically on the originality and secondariness of every variant in the New Testament. That expectation is unrealistic and unachievable. Several readings seem impervious to satisfactory resolution, whatever one's methodological proclivities. In any case it may perhaps be a better function of textual criticism if it alerts readers to the sheer variety of viable options in a text that has had a theologically rich history. Most theologically sensitive readings reflect early Christological debate and thus bear valuable historical testimony. If the results of textual criticism promote only the supposed original reading, the danger is that the secondary readings are jettisoned as flawed and spurious. We thus forget that all readings were once used as canonical by the owners of each manuscript.


So in conclusion it appears that one verse did not "expose the CT and modern translations," but it exposed the weaker scholarship of the older translations. Now that's not completely fair, I suppose, since even 100 years ago we did not have nearly as many Greek documents to help us understand the meanings of words, and I'm not just talking about Greek NT manuscripts. IOW, we now have many business and other such secular MSS, and when we see words used in everyday life in these MSS it gives a context and helps Greek experts to determine the meaning of words more clearly, by comparison. Because we do not have Greek dictionaries or lexicons from that time saying specifically what this or that word means, we have to determine that from context and how it was used in various other documents. Today we have many, many more of such MSS to help us determine more precisely the meanings of words used then. Many of those were found in such digs as the "dead sea scrolls," which included not just the OT Septuagint and Hebrew or Aramaic MSS, but also business papers. That's what happened with μονογενὴς. There was some misunderstanding about it before. The same translators of the ASV-1901, if they were alive today, would likely have translated that verse somewhat differently themselves.

BD



I'm re-posting this because I dealt with your claim that the NASB in some way "changed" Jesus from being in the Father's bosom" to "close to His side." I do not have time this week to discuss on the board, but the term is "εἰς τὸν κόλπον" - which refers to the front of the garment. What the NASB did was very accurate. Since we do not use the word "bosom" much today, it is easily misunderstood, so I prefer the NASB rendering.

I alsdo dealt with "changinf 'declared' to 'explained'." The NASB is actually more accurate. The ASV-1901 is less accurate and plays down Jesus' role in coming to the earth. I explained it above.

Gotta go!

BD

tgallison
May 5th 2009, 12:13 PM
I'm re-posting this because I dealt with your claim that the NASB in some way "changed" Jesus from being in the Father's bosom" to "close to His side." I do not have time this week to discuss on the board, but the term is "εἰς τὸν κόλπον" - which refers to the front of the garment. What the NASB did was very accurate. Since we do not use the word "bosom" much today, it is easily misunderstood, so I prefer the NASB rendering.

I alsdo dealt with "changinf 'declared' to 'explained'." The NASB is actually more accurate. The ASV-1901 is less accurate and plays down Jesus' role in coming to the earth. I explained it above.

Gotta go!

BD

Greetings BD

Perhaps you have some Greek words to answer this.


THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE


The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, "In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed," Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, question by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it...When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended...I used I used to laugh with others...However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them...the deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of theis?

"Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...I don't want anything to do with it..."

BadDog
May 5th 2009, 02:05 PM
Greetings BD

Perhaps you have some Greek words to answer this.


THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE


The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that, "In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed," Dr. Frank Logsdon, former pastor of Moody Memorial Church, along with Dewey Lockman (The Lockman Foundation), laid the groundwork for this modern version. After its publication, question by friends caused Dr. Logsdon to examine the translation closely. The following is his renunciation of every attachment to the NASB. This renunciation takes on added meaning since the NIV and NASB used the Nestle/Aland Text in the revision process and many changes are common to both.

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it...When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended...I used I used to laugh with others...However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right in the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them...the deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of theis?

"Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachments to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...I don't want anything to do with it..."So? What's your point? Logsdon was the pastor of a church - with limited training in translation matters. He didn't even realize that the revision of the ASV-1901 to the NASB was going to be based upon the critical text! Well, since the ASV-1901 was itself based upon the CT, it should have been obvious.

BTW, I was personally involved in a revision of the ASV-1901 to the WEB translation - a majority text revision. FWIW, I was well aware that the ASV-1901 was a critical text translation.

You are still ignoring the arguments I made. I demonstrated that the NASB was more accurate than the ASV-1901 (and the KJV also, for that matter) in translating John 1:18. BTW, do you realize that you sound very much like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory"? Did you read TrustGzus' comments regarding what you are rejecting?

Personally, like I said earlier, I think there are other threads were what limited time I have can be better served.

CYL,

BD

tgallison
May 5th 2009, 08:04 PM
So? What's your point? Logsdon was the pastor of a church - with limited training in translation matters. He didn't even realize that the revision of the ASV-1901 to the NASB was going to be based upon the critical text! Well, since the ASV-1901 was itself based upon the CT, it should have been obvious.

BTW, I was personally involved in a revision of the ASV-1901 to the WEB translation - a majority text revision. FWIW, I was well aware that the ASV-1901 was a critical text translation.

You are still ignoring the arguments I made. I demonstrated that the NASB was more accurate than the ASV-1901 (and the KJV also, for that matter) in translating John 1:18. BTW, do you realize that you sound very much like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory"? Did you read TrustGzus' comments regarding what you are rejecting?

Personally, like I said earlier, I think there are other threads were what limited time I have can be better served.

CYL,

BD

BD greetings

I would rather hear from one man that has a personal relationship with God, than a thousand that do not, no matter what seminary or school they went to, or how good they are at manipulating words.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, manifested in the flesh.

Terrell

BadDog
May 6th 2009, 03:45 PM
BD greetings

I would rather hear from one man that has a personal relationship with God, than a thousand that do not, no matter what seminary or school they went to, or how good they are at manipulating words.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, manifested in the flesh.

TerrellTerrell,

Greetings. So are you saying that Lockman did not have a personal relationship with God? ...or that I do not? I can assure you that we both do.

This is just a cop-out. "Manipulating words." ??? Who's manipulating words? You see, the reason I say it's a cop-out is name-calling or to personally vilify an individual is not a godly or biblical thing to do and it avoids dealing with the actual issues. How can we tell if someone is following the Lord? Do they treat people as God does? IOW, what is the correct translation of that text. Who cares about their particular background? Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter how you dress up a potato, it still is not a strawberry. If a godly person mistranslates a text, it remains wrong, and if OTOH an unbeliever correctly handles and translates a text, it remains right.

I want a translation where the committee involved in translating (or revising) does a thorough job, and is very careful to treat the original languages with respect. It does not matter how someone feels about a text. What does God's Word say? Let's have accuracy and careful communication of the original meaning and impact, as best it can be translated.

BTW, change of topic. You started this thread out as a comparison of the ASV-1901 with the NASB (latest 1995). Since the WEB (World English Bible) is a revision of the ASV-1901 based upon the majority text (Byzantine text), what do you think of it? Have you ever considered it? It is based upon the MT whereas the ASV-1901 was based upon the CT.

Just curious.

BD

tgallison
May 6th 2009, 06:05 PM
[quote=BadDog;2065490]Terrell,

Greetings. So are you saying that Lockman did not have a personal relationship with God? ...or that I do not? I can assure you that we both do.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have no way of knowing for sure if one has a personal relationship with God, only that person alone knows. I can only judge by their fruit.


Who cares about their particular background? Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter how you dress up a potato, it still is not a strawberry. If a godly person mistranslates a text, it remains wrong, and if OTOH an unbeliever correctly handles and translates a text, it remains right.

As I have noticed, God uses men like Noah, Abraham, Joshua, Moses, David, and Daniel to carry on his work. When did He start using unbelievers to handle his Word?


I want a translation where the committee involved in translating (or revising) does a thorough job, and is very careful to treat the original languages with respect.

Having respect for the Word of God does not include mutilating it, and making Christians a laughing stock of both Islamists and Jews.


It does not matter how someone feels about a text. What does God's Word say? Let's have accuracy and careful communication of the original meaning and impact, as best it can be translated.

We did that for more than 1800 hundred years. Why should we now allow Godless men to mutilate it, and try an destroy the Deity of Christ.


BTW, change of topic. You started this thread out as a comparison of the ASV-1901 with the NASB (latest 1995). Since the WEB (World English Bible) is a revision of the ASV-1901 based upon the majority text (Byzantine text), what do you think of it? Have you ever considered it? It is based upon the MT whereas the ASV-1901 was based upon the CT.

I started this topic to show the progression of confusion introduced by the modern translations, to the point that Jesus was placed outside of the Father. They moved Jesus from in the bosom to near the Father. It is not an accident that they did that.

Jesus Christ and the Father are one. John 10:30

Terrell

BadDog
May 6th 2009, 07:42 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have no way of knowing for sure if one has a personal relationship with God, only that person alone knows. I can only judge by their fruit.
C'mon Terrell. This is getting personal, and it should not. I did not put words into your mouth. I just took the words you used and asked what you meant by them. I think I did not understand what you were trying to say here. It appeared that you were saying that I do not know the Lord. Under the circumstances of such an accusation, I think I handled it quite well. You had said:

I would rather hear from one man that has a personal relationship with God, than a thousand that do not, no matter what seminary or school they went to, or how good they are at manipulating words.
So you were either saying this about me, or those who translated the NASB. Nothing else fits the context.


As I have noticed, God uses men like Noah, Abraham, Joshua, Moses, David, and Daniel to carry on his work. When did He start using unbelievers to handle his Word?
I am making a point. The point is not our opinion of the spirituality of men, but the accuracy with which they speak. A man who takes God's Word and preaches it accurately, exalting it, is one whom I prefer to be my pastor. I cannot tell about his walk with God, as you say above. But I must insist that he treat God's Word with respect and lift it up. Similarly, regarding those who translate the Word of God, we must judge their results alone. The NASB down through the years has always been considered by men of God to be perhaps the most accurate translation into English ever. A similar respect was given to the ASV-1901, for about 20 years. It was called "The rock of biblical accuracy."

Terrell, I am simply saying that we must look at how the original languages are handled when considering a translation. What else can be the ruler by which we judge a translation?

BTW, men like Westcott and Hort are dedicated believers. Yet people have taken some of their quotes out of context and tried to show that they are not believers. Ridiculous. I say let's judge their work.


Having respect for the Word of God does not include mutilating it, and making Christians a laughing stock of both Islamists and Jews.

We did that for more than 1800 hundred years. Why should we now allow Godless men to mutilate it, and try an destroy the Deity of Christ.
The NASB and other modern translations lift up the deity of Christ every bit as thoroughly as does the ASV-1901 or the KJV. I have dealt with that specifically regarding John 1:18 as well.

You cannot use such words as "mutilate" when referring to a translation without defending it. I did not ask you to deal with the translation of the Greek into English. But when you claim that the NASB or any other modern translation has "mutilated" God's Word, then you are saying that it has not accurately translated from Greek/Hebrew into English. You are then required to defend that in the Greek or Hebrew. If you choose to not do so, then why are you disparaging the translation work that was done? You have no right to do so. I do have a right to ask you what is wrong with what I said in that post I re-posted in which I demonstrated how the Greek was handled in a more accurate manner by the NASB than by the ASV-1901.


I started this topic to show the progression of confusion introduced by the modern translations, to the point that Jesus was placed outside of the Father. They moved Jesus from in the bosom to near the Father. It is not an accident that they did that.

Jesus Christ and the Father are one. John 10:30

Terrell
I addressed that issue. I dealt with the phrase translated the Greek phrase, "εἰς τὸν κόλπον". Here is a portion of that post again. Where has the NASB messed up?


Now regarding translating "εἰς τὸν κόλπον" - "in the bosom" or "in intimate proximity" as "close to the Father's side"... what's the big concern here? Do we use "bosom" today? ... with the same meaning as say 100 or more years ago? No. So shouldn't we prefer to translate it so that the meaning of being in intimate proximity (my words - but that's the idea) comes across clearly? The Greek term does not mean just "bosom" but has the idea of the front of the garment. IOW, the person is very close to someone else... they're in hugable distance. I don't see the big deal here. Perhaps it could be expressed in more intimate terms, and I would prefer that as well, but what was written is accurate, just not as poetic. Is there a modern term meaning essentially to be within the arms of someone? That would be a good way or translating. But the NASB translated very accurately here.


Here's where I dealt with the word, ἐξηγέομαι. You said that the NASB has in some manner diluted the meaning of "to declare." But that is not what this word means. Here are my comments again:


ἐξηγέομαι has the idea of "leading out, to be the leader" or "to draw out, as in a narrative; to unfold a teaching." It means "to interpret things which are typically sacred or divine, or perhaps to explain a dream." IOW, the idea is not simply "to declare" something or someone... but "to interpret or explain." Now the term can be used to mean simply "to recount the details" of something, but we have other Greek words which mean simply "to report" or "declare," and the apostle John used those terms in 1 John 1. He did not use them here, and IMO that is significant. We lose the significance of the word with such a translation. Translating it as "declare Him" misses out on the nuances of the Greek here. The modern translations have done a superior job of getting to the essence.

So IMO "to explain" is better than simply "to declare." And most translators seem to agree with me here, as do the lexicons. For example, in 1 John 1:2 John says that "we testify and declare to you..." The Greek word there is ἀπαγγέλλομεν. If John had meant simply "to declare" he would have used ἀπαγγέλλομεν in John 1:18, as he did in 1 John 1:2 and 3. In 1 John 1:5 John used a similar word, ἀναγγέλλομεν - the idea of "reporting" or "declaring." But it is the Son who is "explaining" the Father in John 1:18, so John chose a different word (ἐξηγέομαι - "to lead out or explain." ἐξ [ἐκ] means "out.") which has the idea of more than just "declaring." So the NASB captured the intended idea of the Son "explaining" or "interpreting" the Father to the world.

IOW, the KJV and the ASV-1901 weakened the role of Christ in not simply declaring the Father, but in explaining and interpreting Him to the world!

Now rather than disparaging modern translations, let's respect the work of men of God who worked hard for many years in preparing a translation of God's Word into English that God would use in the lives of His people. If you prefer the ASV-1901 or the KJV, that's great. I have no problem with that. But why put down the translation of God's Word as done by others? That is what you are doing. I prefer the HCSB and the NET translations into English. I also like the WEB, which is a MT translation, and the NKJV which is a TR translation.

And if people were to put down the KJV or the ASV-1901B, I would defend those translations as well, and have done so on this forum.

Thx,

BD

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77