PDA

View Full Version : Some facts regarding the NU in the NKJV



tgallison
Apr 7th 2009, 03:37 AM
By BD Sounds like you must be right. I tried to search it out and could not find any sites that gave a direct link.

But the key is recognizing that they are both Bible translation and distribution organizations. And the Greek text used by the UBS, and promoted to be used by translators around the world, is the N-A Greek text, but packaged differently - for Bible translators. The ABS has only been behind the Today's English Version and the Contemporary English Version. It is not attempting to bring Christians together under one umbrella. It is all about getting the Word into people's hands.

I want to start out by saying the UBS has many loving Christians who have devoted their life to Christ, who done many good works, and have helped spread the gospel. That being said, it does not hurt to examine the leadership and what they have been doing. BD you have said the ABS and the UBS are autonomous, but if the President of the ABS is also the chairman of the UBS Executive committee, and the address for the UBS is the office of the ABS in New York, how much autonomy is that. The following came from the UBS web-site.(“Welcoming the agreement by VBI, ABS President Dr Eugene Habecker, Chairman of the UBS Executive Committee, said,”)

The ABS produced the Good News Bible, and the UBS has been translating the Good News Bible into other languages and selling it. What I fail to understand is why they are translating the Good News Bible, instead of the NU. I don’t know if they did translate the NU into other languages, but it didn’t show up in a word search of their web site. Can you imagine if this work had been done 1800 years ago how much more confusion there would be when we started to find all of these Good News Bible Translations all over the world?


And even if it were, so what? What does that have to do with the quality of work done not by the UBS but by Nestle and Aland? The UBS did not develop the Greek text they use - it is the NA Greek text.

Kurt Aland worked for the UBS while he worked as co-editor of the Nestle- Aland through the associate Wurttembergische Bible Institute, later changed to German Bible Society.

"The third edition of the United Bible Societies text was altered in more than 500 places from the first edition (see Aland Black Metzger Wikren 1966 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html#alandblackmetzgerwikren1966)), most of the changes being made at the suggestion of Kurt Aland. Since 1952 Aland had been co-editor of the "Nestle-Aland" editions of the Württembergische BibelanstaltNestle 1927 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-n.html#nestle1927)), and he appears to have been the dominant member of the UBS committee from the start." along with Erwin Nestle"

The publisher of this text, United Bible Societies (UBS), is an association of Bible societies from five countries: The American Bible Society, The National Bible Society of Scotland, the Württemberg Bible Institute (now called the German Bible Society), the Netherlands Bible Society, and the British and Foreign Bible Society. The association was created in 1955 for the purpose of producing this text, and it now manages international Bible publication and distribution operations which in the past had been performed chiefly by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

You can say the UBS is not ecumenical, but they produce Catholic Bibles.
This edition presents a modest revision of the text of the first UBS edition (see Aland Black Metzger Wikren 1966 (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html#alandblackmetzgerwikren1966)). Worthy of note is the fact that for this edition a Roman Catholic scholar, Carlo Martini, has been added to the editorial committee.


“We are working more and more closely with the Bible Society,” he says. “Our Cardinal is one of the patrons of the Bible Society, we are represented on the translation committees and on boards – all this has psychologically put the Bible Society in a better perspective for us.”


The UBS launched a program to replace the King James with the Good News Bible.
Resistance in churches

However, there is greater resistance to the change in the churches than in the schools. Mr Stewart cites an example:
“One pastor tried to get his church to change from the King James and someone said, ‘Listen, this [version] was here before you and will be here after you. So take your Bible and go, we are happy with what we have.’”
The Bible Society is not discouraged, and has launched a massive marketing campaign to gain acceptance for the new Bible.



The GNB was not chosen simply because it was produced by UBS, he notes. With the help of Opportunity 21 (http://www.o-21.org/), the cost is being kept the same as the KJV.

And this organizations Bible is stamped on almost every page of the NKJV.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 7th 2009, 03:41 AM
:rolleyes:

15 characters

tgallison
Apr 7th 2009, 07:43 PM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;2037191]:rolleyes:

"There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion." - Francis Schaeffer(The God Who is There)

I see you have seen a picture of me.

A humanist's idea of compassion is that God will let no one go to Hell.

Terrell





15 characters

Reynolds357
Apr 7th 2009, 08:14 PM
We can find fault with every English translation of the Bible in existence. I do not remember all the details, because it did not in the least interest me when it was taught (and still does not), but I remember from Bible college one of the professors attacking the motives behind and some of the people involved in the translation of the 1611 KJV. Let us be realistic, no group of Bible translators is perfect. I honestly do not care if Athiests translate the Bible so long as they do it correctly. In all honesty, they probably would render a more accurate translation because they would be absent of theological bias.
I personally prefer to use the KJV. Unfortunately, I have seen from a practical ministry standpoint that the KJV limits the ministry. In an ideal world, the schools would still be providing a classical education to our children. They would be able to read the classics and comprehend them. Unfortunately, most can not even read the comic strip in the news paper and comprehend it. Even though I love the King James, I would much rather have someone actually read and understand a modern translation, that stare at their KJV on the night stand gathering dust because they can neither read nor understand it.

tgallison
Apr 7th 2009, 11:18 PM
We can find fault with every English translation of the Bible in existence. I do not remember all the details, because it did not in the least interest me when it was taught (and still does not), but I remember from Bible college one of the professors attacking the motives behind and some of the people involved in the translation of the 1611 KJV. Let us be realistic, no group of Bible translators is perfect. I honestly do not care if Athiests translate the Bible so long as they do it correctly. In all honesty, they probably would render a more accurate translation because they would be absent of theological bias.
I personally prefer to use the KJV. Unfortunately, I have seen from a practical ministry standpoint that the KJV limits the ministry. In an ideal world, the schools would still be providing a classical education to our children. They would be able to read the classics and comprehend them. Unfortunately, most can not even read the comic strip in the news paper and comprehend it. Even though I love the King James, I would much rather have someone actually read and understand a modern translation, that stare at their KJV on the night stand gathering dust because they can neither read nor understand it.

God did not make the Bible easy to be understood. Even the writers did not understand all they wrote. Do you think the Jews who put the blood of a lamb over the lentil had any understanding of what that meant.

God desires seekers of truth, seekers of Him. God sent the twelve out, but said, leave those in the dust, that do not have a desire to hear. God desires to reveal himself through the Spirit of Truth.

I hardly think God wants people to think the lamb of God was actually a rooster, as some have done with their Dynamic Equivalence Translation.

If it makes you feel good, you should do it, is the philosophy of the day.

God said to speak to the Rock, to do anything otherwise was inappropriate. Moses did what he thought was appropriate, in consideration of the circumstances he found himself in. Because he didn't follow instructions, he found himself placed outside the promised land. Moses had reason in his own mind to strike the Rock, after all, God had told him previously to strike the Rock to obtain water.

"And you Solomon my son, know thou the God of your father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands all the imaginations of the thoughts: if you seek him, he will be found of you; but if you forsake him, he will cast you off for ever." (1 Chronicles 28:9)

Today, almost all the work done by Bible translators is Dynamic Equivalence, transferring God's thoughts to man's thought's. How does man transfer God's thoughts to his, when God's thoughts are so much higher than his.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaiah 55:8)

"And again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." (1 Corinthians 3:20)

The Greek word for wise, "sophos", has the connotation of being skilled in letters.

Peace in Jesus Christ, Terrell

apothanein kerdos
Apr 7th 2009, 11:24 PM
Tgallison,

How fluent are you in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

keck553
Apr 7th 2009, 11:27 PM
Hey! I'm still struggling with English!

Seriously, my NASB gives way sometimes NKJV. At least the KJV highlights the commentary.

tgallison
Apr 7th 2009, 11:52 PM
Tgallison,

How fluent are you in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

Can't say that I am familiar with any of them, but I do have a relationship with my Father, and I know the voice of my shepherd.

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Corinthians 1:19-20)

"For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty:" (1 Corinthians 1 26-27)

Again the Greek word for wise found in this scripture has the connotation of a translator.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 8th 2009, 12:10 AM
Can't say that I am familiar with any of them, but I do have a relationship with my Father, and I know the voice of my shepherd.

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Corinthians 1:19-20)

"For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty:" (1 Corinthians 1 26-27)

Again the Greek word for wise found in this scripture has the connotation of a translator.


Then if you don't know any of those languages, how do you know you're actually reading the Word of God? I mean, EVERYTHING you read has to be a translation because you can't read those languages. Since translations are bad, I guess that means you've never read His Word...

Furthermore, how do you know sophos means "translator?" Which, by the way, it doesn't. The passage is talking about the Sophists...but hey...since you're not familiar with Greek, but feel you can translate it anyway, who am I to tell you what it means? ;)

Reynolds357
Apr 8th 2009, 01:26 AM
God did not make the Bible easy to be understood. Even the writers did not understand all they wrote. Do you think the Jews who put the blood of a lamb over the lentil had any understanding of what that meant.

God desires seekers of truth, seekers of Him. God sent the twelve out, but said, leave those in the dust, that do not have a desire to hear. God desires to reveal himself through the Spirit of Truth.

I hardly think God wants people to think the lamb of God was actually a rooster, as some have done with their Dynamic Equivalence Translation.

If it makes you feel good, you should do it, is the philosophy of the day.

God said to speak to the Rock, to do anything otherwise was inappropriate. Moses did what he thought was appropriate, in consideration of the circumstances he found himself in. Because he didn't follow instructions, he found himself placed outside the promised land. Moses had reason in his own mind to strike the Rock, after all, God had told him previously to strike the Rock to obtain water.

"And you Solomon my son, know thou the God of your father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands all the imaginations of the thoughts: if you seek him, he will be found of you; but if you forsake him, he will cast you off for ever." (1 Chronicles 28:9)

Today, almost all the work done by Bible translators is Dynamic Equivalence, transferring God's thoughts to man's thought's. How does man transfer God's thoughts to his, when God's thoughts are so much higher than his.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaiah 55:8)

"And again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." (1 Corinthians 3:20)

The Greek word for wise, "sophos", has the connotation of being skilled in letters.

Peace in Jesus Christ, Terrell


If the Bible is supposed to be hard to understand, why not just stare at the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts? I gave up on learning Greek long ago. I never have tried to learn the other two. I leared enough about the Greek language to know that I should leave translation of Greek to true scholars. I have vast amounts of reference material that true experts have written that tell me what the orig. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic say. What I find interesting is that especially when dealing with Hebrew, the best experts totally disagree on how a phrase or group of phrases should be traslated. So, if you want hard to understand, just read the Bible in its native languages.

The Bible was not meat to be hard to understand. It is the Living word of God. It speaks to me. However, if I tried to read it in a language or form of language that I do not understand, it would not speak very much.

Please tell me which translation says the Lamb of God is a "rooster." I am not doubting you, I just want to see that one. I never said all translations are good. There are some bad ones out there, but there are also some very good modern translations out there. In my opinion, there are some that are every bit as good and possibly more accurate than KJV. Dynamic equivelance is not "transferring God's thoughts to man's thoughts." It is translating the full meaning of a passage in one language to the identical meaning of the same passage in another.

tgallison
Apr 8th 2009, 01:33 AM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;2038304]Then if you don't know any of those languages, how do you know you're actually reading the Word of God? I mean, EVERYTHING you read has to be a translation because you can't read those languages. Since translations are bad, I guess that means you've never read His Word...

God spoke to me before I knew the scripture. The only thing I knew was that Jesus was called the Son of God. Has God spoken to you?


Furthermore, how do you know sophos means "translator?" Which, by the way, it doesn't. The passage is talking about the Sophists...but hey...since you're not familiar with Greek, but feel you can translate it anyway, who am I to tell you what it means? You want to limit the word to the Greeks only but it is speaking of all wise men. All scribes are "sophos", but all that are "sophos" are not scribes. This is the problem with Dynamic Equivalence translating, for it restricts meanings to the thoughts of the translator.

Remember I qualified my statement with the word connotation.

Terrell

apothanein kerdos
Apr 8th 2009, 01:36 AM
God spoke to me before I knew the scripture. The only thing I knew was that Jesus was called the Son of God. Has God spoken to you?By your standards, no, He hasn't. Guess I'm going to hell. :eek:

Thankfully, your standards aren't the Biblical standards.

You want to limit the word to the Greeks only but it is speaking of all wise men. All scribes are "sophos", but all that are "sophos" are not scribes. This is the problem with Dynamic Equivalence translating, for it restricts meanings to the thoughts of the translator.No, it doesn't mean that. That's like saying, "The English word 'love' can mean 'bacon.'"

It can't - unless the person saying so is crazy. Likewise, sophos in this context is referring to the Sophists. You don't know Greek (you said it, not me), so how could you possibly know what else it can mean? If you say "God told you," I'll contend that it wasn't God, or He doesn't know Greek, so that defense isn't going to work. Just letting you know. :)

apothanein kerdos
Apr 8th 2009, 01:41 AM
Hey! I'm still struggling with English!

Seriously, my NASB gives way sometimes NKJV. At least the KJV highlights the commentary.
Exactly my point.

No one on this board is fluent in any of those languages. In fact, there's less than 500 people in the United States that are fluent in all three of those languages. So if we can't trust our English translations, then the only other alternative is to know those languages.

tgallison
Apr 8th 2009, 12:28 PM
If the Bible is supposed to be hard to understand, why not just stare at the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts? I gave up on learning Greek long ago. I never have tried to learn the other two. I leared enough about the Greek language to know that I should leave translation of Greek to true scholars. I have vast amounts of reference material that true experts have written that tell me what the orig. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic say. What I find interesting is that especially when dealing with Hebrew, the best experts totally disagree on how a phrase or group of phrases should be traslated. So, if you want hard to understand, just read the Bible in its native languages.

The Bible was not meat to be hard to understand. It is the Living word of God. It speaks to me. However, if I tried to read it in a language or form of language that I do not understand, it would not speak very much.

Please tell me which translation says the Lamb of God is a "rooster." I am not doubting you, I just want to see that one. I never said all translations are good. There are some bad ones out there, but there are also some very good modern translations out there. In my opinion, there are some that are every bit as good and possibly more accurate than KJV. Dynamic equivelance is not "transferring God's thoughts to man's thoughts." It is translating the full meaning of a passage in one language to the identical meaning of the same passage in another.

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/dynamic.html

A man working on the translation of a dynamic equivalency version of the Bible into a tribal language spoken in northeast India has reasoned as follows: This tribe has never sacrificed lambs, but they have sacrificed roosters (cocks) to their gods in days past. Therefore, we must translate John’s testimony as follows: “Behold the Cock of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Evangelist Maken Sanglir of Nagaland gave us this illustration of Bible translation work in northeast India.

Terrell

tgallison
Apr 8th 2009, 01:12 PM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;2038414]By your standards, no, He hasn't. Guess I'm going to hell. :eek:

Perhaps I should clarify my statement. I was seeking God, and I cried out to him night after night and had no peace. I could not understand how it all could be fair. The world did not seem just to me. I was wrestling with God. And one night he answered me in a wonderful way. He overwhelmed me with the goodness of his Son in my soul. At that moment I understood that Jesus is all that is good in this world. That He could do no wrong. That Spirit that came into my soul has always been with me. I know my master's voice.


Thankfully, your standards aren't the Biblical standards.
No, it doesn't mean that. That's like saying, "The English word 'love' can mean 'bacon.'"

It can't - unless the person saying so is crazy. Likewise, sophos in this context is referring to the Sophists. You don't know Greek (you said it, not me), so how could you possibly know what else it can mean? If you say "God told you," I'll contend that it wasn't God, or He doesn't know Greek, so that defense isn't going to work. Just letting you know.

"sophos" was derived from the Sophists and means wise. It can be applied in the negative or the positive. It was applied to God. You want to apply it to the Greeks only, in a narrow way, and that is the problem with Dynamic Equivalence. The definition is as narrow as the thoughts of the translator.

Transliteration

sophos

Pronunciation

so-fo's (Key) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4680&t=KJV#)

Part of Speech

adjective


Root Word (Etymology)


akin to saphes (clear)

TDNT Reference


7:465,1056 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4680&t=KJV#)

Vines


View Entry (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4680&t=KJV#)

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) wise
a) skilled, expert: of artificers
b) wise, skilled in letters, cultivated, learned
1) of the Greek philosophers and orators
2) of Jewish theologians
3) of Christian teachers
c) forming the best plans and using the best means for their execution

Terrell

apothanein kerdos
Apr 8th 2009, 02:08 PM
[quote]

Perhaps I should clarify my statement. I was seeking God, and I cried out to him night after night and had no peace. I could not understand how it all could be fair. The world did not seem just to me. I was wrestling with God. And one night he answered me in a wonderful way. He overwhelmed me with the goodness of his Son in my soul. At that moment I understood that Jesus is all that is good in this world. That He could do no wrong. That Spirit that came into my soul has always been with me. I know my master's voice.



"sophos" was derived from the Sophists and means wise. It can be applied in the negative or the positive. It was applied to God. You want to apply it to the Greeks only, in a narrow way, and that is the problem with Dynamic Equivalence. The definition is as narrow as the thoughts of the translator.

Transliteration

sophos

Pronunciation

so-fo's (Key) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4680&t=KJV#)

Part of Speech

adjective


Root Word (Etymology)


akin to saphes (clear)

TDNT Reference


7:465,1056 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4680&t=KJV#)

Vines


View Entry (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4680&t=KJV#)

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) wise
a) skilled, expert: of artificers
b) wise, skilled in letters, cultivated, learned
1) of the Greek philosophers and orators
2) of Jewish theologians
3) of Christian teachers
c) forming the best plans and using the best means for their execution

TerrellAgain, you have no concept of Greek. Have you ever read anything by the Sophists? Do you know what the Sophists did? Do you have a reference point or what it means when it calls them "wise" and "skilled in letters"? Do you know the extent to which Sophism had spread in the 1st century? Do you know its influence on the area in Corinth?

If not, again I ask, how do you know you're even close to accurate on your translation of sophos?

tgallison
Apr 8th 2009, 02:30 PM
[quote=tgallison;2038918]Again, you have no concept of Greek. Have you ever read anything by the Sophists? Do you know what the Sophists did? Do you have a reference point or what it means when it calls them "wise" and "skilled in letters"? Do you know the extent to which Sophism had spread in the 1st century? Do you know its influence on the area in Corinth?

If not, again I ask, how do you know you're even close to accurate on your translation of sophos?

The Sophists, are they not the ones who started Textual Criticism?

ears2hear
Apr 8th 2009, 03:36 PM
I haven't read through this thread so pardon me if it has already been adressed, but I have a question.

I was recently told that the KJV is not as accurate as some of the newer translations (i can not remember which ones, sorry) because the newer translations were translated from older texts that were found after the KJV was written. Any truth to this? Something about with the KJV, some books had to be trnslated from Hebrew (i think) back into greek in order for them to be translated into KJV.

keck553
Apr 8th 2009, 03:52 PM
Exactly my point.

No one on this board is fluent in any of those languages. In fact, there's less than 500 people in the United States that are fluent in all three of those languages. So if we can't trust our English translations, then the only other alternative is to know those languages.

We have to remember our relationship is with God, not the Bible. I try not to get excessively wrapped up in Bible translations as our eyes need to remain fixed on Messiah, not nuances of translation. While I go deep with it in study, I try to keep in mind that the One who's Words I am studing is right here, with me. God already knows our language.

These red flags that pop up when I hear something that's off Scripture doesn't come from my own wisdom. I'm not that smart. We have to remember the Spirit of Adonai is always working in us, if we just give pause and listen to Him instead of our own voice and intellect. Just a thought....

apothanein kerdos
Apr 8th 2009, 06:30 PM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;2038969]

The Sophists, are they not the ones who started Textual Criticism?

No, they're not. Historical criticism comes from the 18th and 19th centuries from German theologians. Well over a thousand years after the Sophists.

TrustGzus
Apr 8th 2009, 07:04 PM
I've read this entire thread. I don't see how any posts relates to the OP. I'm not even sure what the discussion is to be about after reading the OP. Is the point on the one hand to say that many from the UBS are Christians who love Jesus and then take that away with the other hand and claim that the UBS can't be trusted?

After establishing that fact, is the point that we should accept the KJV because tradition determines which Bible is the most accurate based on the story told by "Mr. Stewart" in the OP where the pastor sticks the KJV via an argument by tradition . . .
However, there is greater resistance to the change in the churches than in the schools. Mr Stewart cites an example:
“One pastor tried to get his church to change from the King James and someone said, ‘Listen, this [version] was here before you and will be here after you. So take your Bible and go, we are happy with what we have.’”How's this thread intended to help or edify? Or is it just beating a dead horse?

tgallison
Apr 8th 2009, 08:58 PM
[quote=tgallison;2038994]

No, they're not. Historical criticism comes from the 18th and 19th centuries from German theologians. Well over a thousand years after the Sophists.

The Poetics of Aristotle (http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/Poetics-of-Aristotle) by Aristotle (http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/) View in context (http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/Poetics-of-Aristotle/1-16#sophist)
When the sophist would supplant, with the wild theories of his worldly wisdom, the positive mandates of inspiration, let him remember the expansion of his own feeble intellects, and pause—let him feel the wisdom of God in what is partially concealed.

Terrell

tgallison
Apr 8th 2009, 09:26 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2039288]I've read this entire thread. I don't see how any posts relates to the OP.

The thread is about looking at the UBS in light of the fact that the UBS translation is sited in notes on almost every page of the NKJV, numerous times.


I'm not even sure what the discussion is to be about after reading the OP. Is the point on the one hand to say that many from the UBS are Christians who love Jesus and then take that away with the other hand and claim that the UBS can't be trusted?Can you name any reason why it is not appropriate to examine the organization, or is it proper to do anything in the name of good intent.


After establishing that fact, is the point that we should accept the KJV because tradition determines which Bible is the most accurate based on the story told by "Mr. Stewart" in the OP where the pastor sticks the KJV via an argument by tradition . . .You left out the part of that story that was the most pertinent. The part about the massive campaign of money to displace the KJV.

"The Bible Society is not discouraged, and has launched a massive marketing campaign to gain acceptance for the new Bible."

One only needs to go through the web-site of the UBS to see how they have organized with many massive campaigns world-wide to replace the Formal Equivalence translations (KJV-ESV-NASB) with the Dynamic Equivalence translations. (With the NIV-GNB-CEV-making up the CLT- Common language Translations.) The main target was to replace the KJV and they made this quite clear.


How's this thread intended to help or edify? The intent was to educate, nothing wrong with that is there? Maybe outcomes no longer count, maybe it is only good intentions that matter.

Terrell

tgallison
Apr 8th 2009, 09:37 PM
I haven't read through this thread so pardon me if it has already been adressed, but I have a question.

I was recently told that the KJV is not as accurate as some of the newer translations (i can not remember which ones, sorry) because the newer translations were translated from older texts that were found after the KJV was written. Any truth to this? Something about with the KJV, some books had to be trnslated from Hebrew (i think) back into greek in order for them to be translated into KJV.

The ones that have propagated this lie about the KJB not being as accurate are the Sophists, who have decided that we can know the thoughts of God, and present us with the rooster of God, in lieu of the lamb of God.

Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 8th 2009, 10:12 PM
Let's bring this back to the OP.

The subject is the NU notes in the New King James Version.

NU in the footnotes indicate what the reading is in the text of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts. These texts are identical in wording.

The wording of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's text is not done willy-nilly. Manuscripts are examined. Manuscripts are weighed in regard to how much influence a manuscript should have in regard to determine what was originally written by an apostle.

For example, a lectionary is going to have much less influence than an uncial or a papyrus.

So Carlo Martini is a Catholic. It's not as if he can decide to insert purgatory into 1 Corinthians anywhere. I don't find prayer to the saints inserted anywhere in these Greek texts.

This is all guilt by association.

Terrell, we all know you don't like any modern translation. We all know the KJV is the only Bible for you. But why do you have to try to find a conspiracy in everything having to do with modern translations?

I watch your theology work itself out, I watch the outcome, and I see an impotent Creator and an omnipotent devil. God got it right once - in 1611 (and maybe the revisions) - the devil has ruled the church in regard to Bible translations the entire rest of the time. The Gates of Hell have prevailed. That's what I read in your posts.

Who's in control: God or the devil? You say the devil is subtle, but that cuts both ways. How do you know he hasn't subtly gotten you to diminish God's omnipotent work in the church and magnify Satan into an omnipotent angel who has crushed the entire field of Bible translating and God has no power left in it?

I see this thinking a lot in the church . . . where Satan has taken something and God is powerless to take it back. The Word of Faith movement is like this. However, many who aren't Word of Faith have fallen into similar problems. Christmas is of the devil and God can't have it back. Easter is of the devil and God can't have it back. Halloween is of the devil and owns that day. God can't, God can't, God can't.

God has triumphed. He has triumphed over the calendar and all days belong to Him. He has also triumphed in Bible translations. Many people can't understand a KJV. Some can. For those who can't understand the KJV, but think the Textus Receptus is the correct Greek text (nevermind which TR at this point), they now have the much clearer NKJV. If they don't like the footnotes, they can ignore them. I used to. If you want an English Bible that lets you know some of the differences (the NKJV doesn't tell all the differences - only some), the NKJV is handy because you don't have to have two Bibles with you.

For those who reject the TR as the most accurate NT Greek text, we have a plethora of good tranlsations ranging from extremely formal (such as the NASB) to largely formal (such as the ESV) to median (NIV/TNIV) to more functional (NLT) to very functional (Message).

But in the theology of modern version advocates, God is omnipotent. God is doing great work through all these versions.

What do we do? Nit-pick each to death instead of being thankful for how blessed we are and for all that God is doing.

Cults don't choose any modern translation. This isn't because cults are great at the biblical languages and think the TR is the best Greek text. Cults will use the KJV because it's the version we are least connected to in the English language due to the change of language. It's the one people will most likely misunderstand and the one accepted text that they can use the most to the advantage of the cult. The can't do this so easily with the clear deity of Jesus in the NIV, or even the NASB or NKJV.

The intention of the KJV translators was good, but today, some of the outcomes are bad now. No fault of theirs. They translated for a 17th century audience, not a 21st century audience. Does this make the KJV bad? No - just outdated and harder to understand than a NKJV or any other modern translation.

My prayer is that you'd stop finding so much fault with Christians who God is using and instead of looking for the worst spin to put on everything, look for the best and agree to disagree where you have a differing opinion.

This constant attacking and guilt-by-association stuff is not healthy, not wise, not godly, not loving, not Christian.

Nowhere did I say (to quote you) "outcomes no longer count, maybe it is only good intentions that matter."

It's the outcome of all your posts I'm looking at - the theological outcome. You make accusations of associations with the Catholic church. I grew up Roman Catholic. Most of my family is Roman Catholic. I went to a private RC school.

I don't see Roman Catholicism in the UBS Greek text. The RC does have an identical NT as we do. No added books, nor any subtracted.

Most of the RC deviations come from the fact that they have a shared authority of Bible and Church. In Protestantism, the church is subservient to the Bible. Thus, we have sola Scriptura. It's their traditions that lead them astray.

And frankly, I think tradition is leading you astray here in this peripheral debate. No one is saved or lost over this, yet for some reason this minor subject is a major focus. Why?

You are desperately trying to find something other than "tradition" to show that the KJV is better than modern translations. But there isn't anything other than tradition. The modern versions have better manuscript support. Their use of English is much closer to how we speak and thus less likely to be misunderstood. The main reason to stick to the KJV is tradition.

You use memorization as an argument. But the KJV was being updated regularly until 1769 from which it hasn't been updated since. So for the first 158 years it got occasional tweaks just like modern versions get updates.

The NIV is locked-in at 1984. So we can use the same argument. My kids who were born in the 90's and the 21st century can use the NIV and it will never change. Good for memorizing! Yes, but the NIV will now suffer the same fate as the KJV. As English evolves, the NIV will become less useful as people don't like that at some point. Hopefully, an NIV-only movement doesn't begin eventually. I can only hope and pray.

So many proponents of the modern versions are staunch defenders of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus alone, the full humanity and deity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Trinity and the second coming.

Frankly, the best books I own on these subjects don't use the KJV as their default. This isn't saying anything against the KJV. It is saying something about the modern translations though.

Both the outcome is good and so are the intentions.

Let's put it on the line. Carlo Martini is Roman Catholic.

Take a modern Protestant translation based on the NA or UBS and show me Roman Catholic distinctives taught in that modern Protestant Bible.

You're talking outcome over intentions. Show it. Take up the NIV or the NASB or the ESV or HCSB or NLT or NKJV, i.e. the top selling versions according to the Christian Booksellers Association, and show me Carlo Martini's influence. Show me Roman Catholicism in these Bibles. By the way, none of those call Jesus the rooster of God. I think showing this in the NKJV would be best to stick with the thread subject, but pick any of them, or all of them.

You're granting good intentions. Let's see the outcome of ecumenism in these versions . . . or let's grant the truth . . . God is defeating the devil and He's doing an awful lot of it with modern versions. That's a great outcome.

Joe

shepherdsword
Apr 9th 2009, 12:01 AM
God spoke to me before I knew the scripture. The only thing I knew was that Jesus was called the Son of God. Has God spoken to you?How do you know it was God speaking to you? I know Jesus is the Son of God because the scripture states it. If you confirmed his voice by checking his word then AK's questions have some merit. If you didn't then you are in real danger of deception.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 9th 2009, 01:01 AM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;2039244]

The Poetics of Aristotle (http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/Poetics-of-Aristotle) by Aristotle (http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/) View in context (http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/Poetics-of-Aristotle/1-16#sophist)
When the sophist would supplant, with the wild theories of his worldly wisdom, the positive mandates of inspiration, let him remember the expansion of his own feeble intellects, and pause—let him feel the wisdom of God in what is partially concealed.

Terrell

Again, have you ever read a Sophist author?

Critical interpretation didn't arise until the 18th and 19th centuries.

The Sophists, however, were epistemic skeptics, believing there was no truth - hence their emphasis on rhetoric and persuasive arguments.

When Paul is talking about the Sophists in that passage, he is saying that he didn't just manipulate words to make his position sound better. He is saying that he spoke the truth with no manipulation (unlike the Sophists).

To be honest, if your knowledge of the Sophists doesn't extend past the screen of your computer and you readily admit to not knowing Greek, how in the world do you think you're qualified to interpret sophia to mean "translators"?

tgallison
Apr 9th 2009, 03:27 AM
[quote=TrustGzus;2039499]Let's bring this back to the OP.

The subject is the NU notes in the New King James Version.

NU in the footnotes indicate what the reading is in the text of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts. These texts are identical in wording.

The wording of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's text is not done willy-nilly. Manuscripts are examined. Manuscripts are weighed in regard to how much influence a manuscript should have in regard to determine what was originally written by an apostle.

Joe greetings

You champion the critical text of Kurt Aland and continually attack the KJV with no regard for the beloved saints that have grown and been comforted spiritually by it during their lifetime.

Some things to think about. The NU agrees with the NASB and the ESV only 83% of the time according to Kurt Aland. This doesn't include orthography or single words. It agrees with the GNB only 69% of the time.

One of the points of this thread is to discuss what the UBS is doing in connection with current translations. They have resorted to using only thought for thought translations such as the GNB or equivalent. Since it only agrees with the NU 69% of the time, why are you so hesitant to discuss it.

The NA-27 and the UBS-4 were completed in 1979. Kurt Aland had been in the employee of UBS since at least 1955. So how is it that they are described as two separate translations. They both belonged to UBS.

You have been critical of me for being critical, and you have been critical of the KJB. The UBS has launched a massive campaign to rid the world of the KJB and replace it with the GNB equivalent.

Can you name one doctrine in the KJB that is incorrect?

Can you name the biggest single item in the KJV that is at variance with the ESV or the NASB?

The Bible is full of warnings against apostacy. Jesus even saw it in Peter. The Pauline Epistles are full of warnings against apostacy in the Church. Watering down the Word is apostacy.

Would you have me stick my head in the sand and look the other way?

There has not been one comment from anyone on the type of translations that are being spread around the world by the UBS. Is that sacred ground?

Salvation in no other name, but Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.

tgallison
Apr 9th 2009, 03:35 AM
[quote=tgallison;2038994]

No, they're not. Historical criticism comes from the 18th and 19th centuries from German theologians. Well over a thousand years after the Sophists.

Have you not read, that there is nothing new under the sun?

tgallison
Apr 9th 2009, 03:49 AM
How do you know it was God speaking to you? I know Jesus is the Son of God because the scripture states it. If you confirmed his voice by checking his word then AK's questions have some merit. If you didn't then you are in real danger of deception.

If you had cried out to God with tears as long as I did, and then was answered, that God is good, and then it was put in my heart the knowledge that He does no wrong, and I can trust Him, what is the danger of deception?

I prayed to the Father and the Son was revealed. Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 9th 2009, 05:08 AM
Hi Terrell,
You champion the critical text of Kurt Aland and continually attack the KJV with no regard for the beloved saints that have grown and been comforted spiritually by it during their lifetime.This is your constant misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my position. How many times must I state that I am against KJV-onlyism and not against the KJV or even those who simply like the KJV over modern version.

I am against the constant assault and questioning of workers of modern translations and the constant guilt-by-association tactics employed against them.

I am not against the KJV itself and only point out problems when people insist it is the only trustable Bible and attack newer versions.

I guess I should just get used to the fact that you apparently will never accurately state my position.
Some things to think about. The NU agrees with the NASB and the ESV only 83% of the time according to Kurt Aland. This doesn't include orthography or single words. It agrees with the GNB only 69% of the time.

One of the points of this thread is to discuss what the UBS is doing in connection with current translations. They have resorted to using only thought for thought translations such as the GNB or equivalent. Since it only agrees with the NU 69% of the time, why are you so hesitant to discuss it.I thought the point of this thread is discuss facts about the NU in the NKJV. I haven't seen one real comment about the NU in the NKJV yet.

You say according to Kurt Aland the ESV agrees 83% of the time with the NU? That's pretty good, Terrell, considering Aland died 7 years before the ESV even was published! Where are you getting your information from?
The NA-27 and the UBS-4 were completed in 1979. Kurt Aland had been in the employee of UBS since at least 1955. So how is it that they are described as two separate translations. They both belonged to UBS.I never claimed they are two seperate translations. They aren't even translations anyway. They are in the original language.

Plus, I pointed out they are indentical in wording. Look at the third line of my previous post where I state . . .
NU in the footnotes indicate what the reading is in the text of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts. These texts are identical in wording.

italics added
You have been critical of me for being critical, and you have been critical of the KJB. The UBS has launched a massive campaign to rid the world of the KJB and replace it with the GNB equivalent.If you wouldn't constantly assault the new versions, I wouldn't bother talking about KJV problems.

Well, they aren't doing too well with the GNB/GNT. The NIV is the top seller over the KJV. The GNT or GNB is not in the top 10. Who cares anyway? I don't.
Can you name one doctrine in the KJB that is incorrect?No. It's a fine translation. I've said that all along. You just re-interpret what I say as anti-KJV instead of anti-KJV-onlyism.

Of course, I asked you to demonstrate the ecumenism in new translations in my last post. You didn't even attempt to. So shouldn't we turn this question around to you about the 5 or 6 top selling versions I named in my previous post?
Can you name the biggest single item in the KJV that is at variance with the ESV or the NASB?Tell me what you think it is. I've read the KJV cover to cover many times. I've read the ESV cover-to-cover. There all fairly formal. The NASB most of all.
The Bible is full of warnings against apostacy. Jesus even saw it in Peter. The Pauline Epistles are full of warnings against apostacy in the Church. Watering down the Word is apostacy.I agree watering down the Word could constitute apostasy. However, isn't adding to the Word wrong also - even if what is added is orthodox? You've never proven any watering down in the top selling modern versions.
Would you have me stick my head in the sand and look the other way?No. But KJV only writers might want you to lest you read the modern versions like the NKJV cover to cover and find out that if you exposit them verse-by-verse you'll be as orthodox as anybody.
There has not been one comment from anyone on the type of translations that are being spread around the world by the UBS. Is that sacred ground?This thread is about the NKJV, right? It is in the title of the thread last time I checked.
Salvation in no other name, but Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.Yep . . . what's the point? Is this supposedly only in the KJV? Here are most, if not all, the English translations I own in regard to this point. Where's the apostasy? I've included the GNT since you keep bringing that up and even a Roman Catholic version (NAB)
12 And salvation is in none other, for neither is there another name under heaven which is given among men by which we must be saved.
DARBY


12 And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.
ASV


12 Only Jesus has the power to save! His name is the only one in all the world that can save anyone.
CEV


12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
ESV


12 Salvation is to be found through him alone; in all the world there is no one else whom God has given who can save us.”
GNT


12 There is no salvation by anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”
ISV


12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
KJV


12 There is salvation in no one else! Under all heaven there is no other name for men to call upon to save them.”
The Living Bible


12 Salvation comes no other way; no other name has been or will be given to us by which we can be saved, only this one.”
The Message


12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
NIV


12 There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.”
NAB


12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
NASB95


12 Jesus is the only One who can save people. No one else in the world is able to save us.”
NCV


12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
NKJV


12 There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.”
NLT


12 There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”
NRSV


And there does not exist in any other the salvation, for there is not even another name under heaven which has been given among men by means of which we can be saved,
WUESTNT



12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
RSV



12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.”
TNIV



12 and there is not salvation in any other, for there is no other name under the heaven that hath been given among men, in which it behoveth us to be saved.’
YLTYou also pointed out along with there being salvation in none other, which all these translations state, you state Jesus being the only begotten Son of God.

All these translations I quoted teach Jesus is the "Son of God". Some don't call him the "only begotten" but may call him "one and only" or "only".

The reason some translations don't use "begotten" is because that is a mistranslation. It's because translators in the past have mistakenly thought that the second part of the compound word μονο-γενής was from γεννάω which would be to "bear" or "begat" when in fact the second part of that word is from γένος meaning "class" or "kind". Many translations have corrected this. The earliest that I'm aware of is the Revised Standard Version, but it can also be found in the NRSV, ESV, NIV, TNIV, CEV, GNT, ISV, TLB, Message, NAB (Catholic Bible), NCV, NLT, and the footnotes of the NASB. I like the ISV best as it translates μονογενής as unique, which has the right idea - only one of his kind (the NASB footnotes have this too).

The KJV is not entirely accurate at this point. An attack on the KJV by me? No, just a fact. You can accept that all these modern translations are more accurate at this point and that the KJV has deficiencies (as do all the others at other points) or you can stick your head in the sand, which as I said, I wouldn't want you to do. The only reason to accept the KJV translation of μονογενής is tradition.

Grace & peace to you, Terrell. Isn't it time to give up this war on other Christians and deal with some real issues out there other than that the KJV isn't universally accepted as the only Bible by other Christians and that some publishers think their translations would help people understand the Word of God better than the KJV?

Joe

tgallison
Apr 9th 2009, 12:56 PM
[q
uote=TrustGzus;2039859]

You say according to Kurt Aland the ESV agrees 83% of the time with the NU? That's pretty good, Terrell, considering Aland died 7 years before the ESV even was published! Where are you getting your information from?I never claimed they are two seperate translations. They aren't even
translations anyway. They are in the original language.In the strictest sense they are not language translations, but in the sense that many manuscripts, and a fair number that were of questionable integrity were used to interpret what was then inserted into the NU, they are.

I was looking at two graphs in the Wikipedia, the first stated it was by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. The second graph did not make that statement, but I assumed it was by them. Perhaps it was by Barbara Aland, since she carried on his work after he died. Below are the two graphs.

Accuracy of the New Testament In "The Text Of The New Testament", Kurt Aland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Aland) and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthography) errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_von_Tischendorf#Works), Westcott-Hort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Testament_in_the_Original_Greek), von Soden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann,_Freiherr_von_Soden), Vogels, Merk, Bover and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece#cite_note-Aland-8) They concluded, "Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism) would have suspected […]. In the Gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels), Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles), and Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) the agreement is less, while in the letters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistles) it is much greater"[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece#cite_note-Aland-8)
Book
Total Number Of Verses
Variant-Free Verses-Total
Percentage
Variants per page
Matthew
1071
642
59.9 %
6.8
Mark
678
306
45.1 %
10.3
Luke
1151
658
57.2 %
6.9
John
869
450
51.8 %
8.5
Acts
1006
677
67.3 %
4.2
Romans
433
327
75.5 %
2.9
1 Corinthians
437
331
75.7 %
3.5
2 Corinthians
206
200
78.1 %
2.8
Galatians
149
114
76.5 %
3.3
Ephesians
155
118
76.1 %
2.9
Philippians
104
73
70.2 %
2.5
Colossians
95
69
72.6 %
3.4
1 Thessalonians
89
61
68.5 %
4.1
2 Thessalonians
47
34
72.3 %
3.1
1 Timothy
113
92
81.4 %
2.9
2 Timothy
83
66
79.5 %
2.8
Titus
46
33
71.7 %
2.3
Philemon
20
19
76.0 %
5.1
Hebrews
303
234
77.2 %
2.9
James
108
66
61.6 %
5.6
1 Peter
105
70
66.6 %
5.7
2 Peter
61
32
52.5 %
6.5
1 John
105
76
72.4 %
2.8
2 John
13
8
61.5 %
4.5
3 John
15
11
73.3 %
3.2
Jude
20
18
72.0 %
4.2
Revelation
405
214
52.8 %
5.1
Total
7947
4999
62.9 %


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novum_Testamentum_Graece&action=edit&section=6)] Influence

Earlier translations of the Bible, including the Authorized King James Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version), tended to rely on the Byzantine text-type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type), also known as the Majority Text. A number of translations began to use critical Greek editions, beginning with the translation of the Revised Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version) in England in 1881-1885 (using Westcott and Hort's Greek Text). English translations produced during the the twentieth century increasingly reflected the work of textual criticism, although even new translations are often influenced by earlier translation efforts.
A comparison of twenty translations with 15,000 variant readings shows the following percentages of agreement with the Nestle-Aland 27th edition:
Abbreviation Name Agreement with Nestle-Aland 27th edition NAS New American Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible) 84% ASV American Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version) 84% NAU New American Standard 1995 Update (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible) 83% NAB New American Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible) 83% ESV English Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version) 83% HCS Holman Christian Standard Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible) 82% NRS New Revised Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version) 82% NET New English Translation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_English_Translation) 80% RSV Revised Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version) 80% NIV New International Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version) 74% NJB New Jerusalem Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible) 73% REB Revised English Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_English_Bible) 71% JNT Jewish New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Jewish_Bible) 70% GNB Good News Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Bible) 69% NLT New Living Translation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Living_Translation) 68% DRA Douay-Rheims American edition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible) 61% TLB The Living Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Bible) 55% MRD Murdock Pe****ta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe****ta) translation 51% NKJ New King James Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Bible) 49% KJV King James Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version) 47% [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece#cite_note-9)




Notice that in the first graph the differences in the four gospels when averaged come to only a 53% agreement when the 7 critical text works are compared.

In the second graph, the variation from the KJV is due in large part to the omitted scripture in the Critical Text.

Terrell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece#cite_note-Aland-8

tgallison
Apr 9th 2009, 04:01 PM
Since the subject of the thread is Facts on the NU that has its name on almost every page of the NJKV, and since Joe wants it back on target, I though it appropriate to present some more facts.

The NU is the work of the United Bible Societies, The American Bible Society is basically one in the same in light of the fact that the address for the UBS is that of the ABS in New York. The president of the ABS was the Executive Administrator for the UBS at the time of the Good News Bible. (Not positive of the exact years of the dual positions, nor the length of time.)

The promoters and owners of the Good News Bible are the ABS and the UBS.

There has been a progressive course of "dumbing" down the word since the advent of the Critical Text. Starting with the NU and then the NIV, the first thought for thought translation, and then commencing with the Good News Bible, another advent of the UBS, and then the CEV. The slippery slope gets steeper as we go along.

For those that say we don't have to worry we still have the NASB and the ESV, you need to look at what is going on around the world. The translators are no longer using the Formal Equivalence, but are translating from mainly the CEV and other like translations.

Here is one example in the first chapter I examined.

KJV "John Bare witness of him and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." (John 1:15)

CEV " 15John spoke about him and shouted, "This is the one I told you would come! He is greater than I am, because he was alive before I was born."

Observe the print in red in the CEV, does that mean that everybody born before John was greater than John. It does not convey the fact that Jesus was born after John, yet he was before John, because he is God manifested in the flesh.

They say these are ignorant people and can not understand, or they are children, but there is no evidence that they are using any formal equivalance translations of any kind.

Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 10th 2009, 02:07 AM
Terrell,

The only comments that match the Title of this thread

I think you might have given this thread the wrong name. Your last two posts said nothing about the NKJV. The title of the thread is Some facts regarding the NU in the NKJV.

When I responded in my second post in this thread, I gave the facts regarding "NU" in the NKJV.
NU in the footnotes indicate what the reading is in the text of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts.Here's what the NKJV introduction states . . .

Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

1. NU-Text

These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament Text.” They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-seventh edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ fourth edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”
The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


The NKJV is a formal translation. It was not published by the United Bible Society (UBS) nor by the American Bible Society (ABS, which is a member of the United Bible Society).

The NKJV is translated from the Textus Receptus and the TR is what is in the body of the text. However, in the footnotes they let the reader know many (but not all) places where the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's Greek texts differ from the TR. The NKJV doesn't give any value of whether those are good or bad. Nor does this endorse the GNT or CEV or anything else done by the UBS or the ABS which is a member of the UBS.

Those are the facts of "NU in the NKJV". Nothing else really to say about it.

What the thread seems to be talking about

It seems this thread isn't about that, but about the UBS or perhaps more focused on the ABS.

The ABS has published two Bibles that I'm aware of: the GNT and CEV. Both are small players in modern English versions. Neither has sold well. They are very functional rather than formal. The only Bible in the top 10 sellers published by the ABS is their 1960 Spanish Reina Valera.

Addressing points from Terrell's last post (which has nothing to do with the NU in the NKJV

I question the accuracy of the chart that talks about how much various English versions stick to the Nestle-Aland Greek text. This is a Wikipedia article which we know can be manipulated by various users. How are they determining these percentages of how much an English version follows a Greek text. I find very little variance in most modern translations from the NA and I've spent a lot of time in the NA and in top selling modern translations (I don't spend much time looking at GNT and CEV and other Bibles that barely anyone buys -- versions which the KJV way outsells by the way).

Furthermore, the chart has the NASB at 84% consistent with the NA and the KJV at 47%. This sounds like questionable to me when the TR only differs from the NA by less than 6%. These are statistics I've gotten from having a computer go through the entire New Testament.

One problem with the chart is the article doesn't give us any clue how they did this study that came up with these numbers and what constitutes an "agreement" or "difference". So without any ground work telling how the study was done, it's not a very helpful chart.

Apostasy & Ecumenism

That's what this is about, isn't it? These are two words that Terrell has brought up in previous posts in this thread.

Terrell, last time I asked you to step up to the plate and demonstrate the ecumenism in modern translations - preferably ones the church is investing a lot of money in (which is not the GNT and CEV which aren't in the top 10 and even have a Spanish Bible beating them out).

You brought up John 1:15 comparing the CEV and the KJV. Here's what you said . . .
KJV "John Bare witness of him and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." (John 1:15)

CEV " 15John spoke about him and shouted, "This is the one I told you would come! He is greater than I am, because he was alive before I was born."

Observe the print in red in the CEV, does that mean that everybody born before John was greater than John. It does not convey the fact that Jesus was born after John, yet he was before John, because he is God manifested in the flesh.Terrell, while I agree this is perhaps a strange rendition of this verse, is the KJV really any clearer about the deity of Jesus in that particular verse? Can't we just take your sentence and place the KJV words in your question . . .

Jesus is preferred before John because he was before John. What does that mean? Mary was before John. So is Mary preferred before John? Everyone in the OT was before John. Are they all preferred before John then?

Before critcizing a modern version (let me add that I've never recommended the CEV to anyone anyway), you might want to look at how clear a verse is in the KJV and see if the same criticism could be leveled on the KJV. Does the KJV convey clearly, as you say, "the fact that Jesus was born after John, yet he was before John, because he is God manifested in the flesh." I don't think so.

When you talk to a JW or some other person that denies the deity of Jesus is John 1:15 one of the first verses you grab and show them? I never have. I don't know anyone who does.

When I go three verses later to 1:18, the CEV & GNT are much clearer on the deity of Jesus than the KJV
18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.
CEV


18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
GNT


18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
KJVNot only that, as we discussed in the previous thread about the NKJV and whether or not it is corrupt, just as the NKJV correctedly translated 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, so the GNT & CEV properly use the Granville Sharp rule to make Jesus' deity clearer than the KJV.
1 From Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. To everyone who shares with us in the privilege of believing that our God and Savior Jesus Christ will do what is just and fair.

13 We are filled with hope, as we wait for the glorious return of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
CEV


1 From Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ—To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have been given a faith as precious as ours:

13 as we wait for the blessed Day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ will appear.
GNT


1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
KJVNow maybe there are some serious doctrinal problems in these versions. I doubt it as I think I would have read more about this from other authors in the version debates. The main criticism of these versions that I know of is how far they are on the scale of functional versus formal tranlsations as they are very functional with maybe only the Living Bible and Message in the same vacinity.

Anyway, so there is three verses where the GNT and CEV are clearer on the deity of Jesus than the KJV. John 1:15 isn't one of the clearest verses on his deity in any version. The main thing that verse should do is get people to ask what John meant since Jesus was actually born after John.

So Terrell, show how these versions deny:


the bodily resurrection of Jesus
salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus alone
the virgin birth
Jesus is fully god and fully man
trinity
Jesus is coming again

Or show how Carlo Martini or some other person has snuck in some Roman Catholicism or some other ecumenical twist into the text of these translations.

I don't see the JW's or any other cult distributing any copies of the GNT or the CEV. Again, is this because the JW's are such great Greek scholars that they know these versions aren't faithful to the text? Or is it because these versions teach the Christian faith too clearly (even if they can be criticized as being too functional at various places).

You asked me to show tell you one doctrine in the KJV that is not correct. I would say the same here. Show a denial of those essentials I listed above. Or show them teaching a Roman Catholic teaching like praying to saints or purgatory.

Show the apostasy.

Why do you make yourself a weapon formed against other Christians who are producing and distributing Bibles in language that people can understand?

Grace & peace to you, Terrell.

Joe

tgallison
Apr 10th 2009, 01:27 PM
[quote=TrustGzus;2040756]

The only comments that match the Title of this thread

Joe greetings

You appear to want to define the parameters of my thread and stick it in a little corner box.


What the thread seems to be talking aboutMy thread states that it is about the NU (that is found) in the NKJV. In fact it is found almost three times per page in the Gospels. What is it doing there?

The NU is the United Bible Societies. The ABS is the United Bible Societies, they have the same address. The UBS presented the NU, and they presented the GNB and the CEV, through the daughter society ABS.

Does the UBS do many wonderful works through the beautiful loving Christians? The answer is definitely yes. Does that mean that we are not to look at the CEO's, and the money managers and the direction they are taking the sheep?

All the translation work being done in the world today is going through the Dymanic Equivalent translations.(thought for thought) It is not coming through the Greek and Hebrew or the Formal Equivalent(word for word) translations.

This is a definite problem. One excuse they use is that they cannot afford to do translations through the Greek or Hebrew, because the cost is too great.

Think about it. What if Jesus had said the cost is too great?

Terrell

TrustGzus
Apr 10th 2009, 11:53 PM
Hey Terrell,
My thread states that it is about the NU (that is found) in the NKJV. In fact it is found almost three times per page in the Gospels. What is it doing there?The NKJV answers this in the introductory notes which I pasted into my last post. They are there to let readers know of significant variations that occur in the Greek manuscripts. Pretty simple. You don't have to own an NA27th or UBS4th to know about some these differences now. Of course, I choose to own them and look for myself.

Do we need to read a motive between the lines? Are the NKJV intro notes lies?

Does the UBS do many wonderful works through the beautiful loving Christians? The answer is definitely yes. Does that mean that we are not to look at the CEO's, and the money managers and the direction they are taking the sheep?Where are they taking the sheep?
All the translation work being done in the world today is going through the Dymanic Equivalent translations.(thought for thought) It is not coming through the Greek and Hebrew or the Formal Equivalent(word for word) translations.How'd you come to the conclusion that translation work is done through Functional equivalent versions and not Greek and Hebrew? Are you saying the introductory notes of all the new Bibles are just lies when they claim they this this or that version of the Greek NT?

Joe

tgallison
Apr 11th 2009, 04:29 AM
[quote=TrustGzus;2041694]

Where are they taking the sheep?

I would say they are taking them astray.


How'd you come to the conclusion that translation work is done through Functional equivalent versions and not Greek and Hebrew? Are you saying the introductory notes of all the new Bibles are just lies when they claim they this this or that version of the Greek NT?

I am referring to the UBS-ABS and the foreign translation work they are doing. They are training natives to translate the Bible, and part of the training does not include Greek and Hebrew, at least not in the formal sense.

tgallison
Apr 11th 2009, 04:36 AM
[quote=TrustGzus;
Addressing points from Terrell's last post (which has nothing to do with the NU in the NKJV

It has everything to do with the NU (that shows up in the NKJV.)

First you say we cannot trust KJV websites, and now that you don’t agree with something, we cannot trust CT websites as well. Nobody can deny that the Wikipedia has a CT bias, for it is liberal in nature, just as our news-media in general has a liberal bias.

The first graph was created by Kurt Aland, creator of the NU for the United Bible Societies. He is the one you champion as the creator of the text for modern translations.(CT) Yet, when he produces a graph that says that the seven modern Greek Texts of the CT only agree among themselves 53.5 %, you protest. Do we only trust Kurt Aland’s work when we agree with it?