PDA

View Full Version : A Question on Luke 9:55-56



ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 6th 2010, 09:35 AM
I don't know much about the different parchments that the KJV or other bibles are translated from, but I have a question as to why this verse is translated so differently between KJV and say ESV and other versions.

KJV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

ESV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
Luk 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them.
Luk 9:56 And they went on to another village.

NASB
54When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:54-56&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25348a)]?" 55But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56and[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:54-56&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25350b)] they went to another village.

There is a chunk of red text that's left out of the ESV and NASB as well as many other Bible versions. Was it because of differences in the manuscripts?

Thanks!

Nomad
Apr 6th 2010, 11:33 AM
There is a chunk of red text that's left out of the ESV and NASB as well as many other Bible versions. Was it because of differences in the manuscripts?


Yes, there are textual variants here between the Greek texts used by the KJV translators and modern English versions. The newer versions have opted to utilize the shorter readings found in earlier manuscripts.

karenoka27
Apr 6th 2010, 01:04 PM
This is precisely why one should only use the KJV....;)

Ok, I'm running out of here before I get hit with something.

(I'm a King James girl):saint:

mcgyver
Apr 6th 2010, 01:04 PM
To go with that, the KJV and it's variants use the Textus Receptus as the underlying text, and the NASB and ESV use the Nestle-Aland text as the basis.

watchinginawe
Apr 6th 2010, 01:06 PM
There is a chunk of red text that's left out of the ESV and NASB as well as many other Bible versions. Was it because of differences in the manuscripts?As Nomad offered, there is a difference in texts here. Take a look at this link on Studylight.org (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=lu+9%3A55+-+56&section=0&it=kjv&oq=lu%25209%3A55%2520-%252056&ot=bhs&nt=tr&new=1&nb=lu&ng=9&ncc=9) . You should see some radio box selections for the greek manuscripts source. My understanding is that the KJV uses the Textus Receptus and the NASB uses the Nestle'-Aland 26. You can use the selection box on the right to select the NASB Strong's Version and then select the Nestle' manuscripts to view the translation of the NASB. There is quite a bit of difference on these verses.

You should also know that this is a matter of controversy among some folks. You can understand why this might be considering the important matter of the preservation of the texts used for translation. We have to realize that what we have are compilations of manuscripts and thus are generational representations of the originals. There are some well educated folks on this matter in these forums that can give more flavor for this than I but I hope you enjoy the tools given at Studylight.org that I linked. I find them very useful in my studies. The site also offers linked on line commentaries and lexicons.

God Bless!

Nomad
Apr 6th 2010, 01:16 PM
This is precisely why one should only use the KJV....;)

With all due respect, that simply isn't true. The KJV translators only had access to relatively few late date Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine text type. They did the best they could and they did a wonderful job. While there is nothing wrong with the KJV we have a more numerous and older manuscript tradition today to utilize. Textual variants do exist (even among the manuscripts used by the KJV translators) and they must be dealt with unless we want to bury our heads in the sand and remain ignorant.

David Taylor
Apr 6th 2010, 02:34 PM
I would suggest to you to get a parallel bible; one that includes both the KJV along with several of the other newer translations like the NIV, NASB, etc....

That way, when there is a difference, you can see what it is and where it differs in the different manuscript types.

The good thing about textual criticism and the debate over which text-type is more accurate; is that 100% of the concepts and biblical teachings found in one family of manuscripts is also found in the other.

It may appear on the surface that some verses are being 'removed from the KJV' however, the newer translations aren't translating 'from' the KJV to begin with, so nothing is removed. Even of the parts that conflict,
no biblical Christian doctrine is sacrificed or omitted, but can be found in other passages, often in relation to the gospels, almost verbatim in one of the other gospel's from the one it appears to be missing from.

Sirus
Apr 6th 2010, 11:35 PM
The newer versions have opted to utilize the shorter readings found in earlier manuscripts.This (in bold) is not entirely accurate.

Sirus
Apr 6th 2010, 11:36 PM
To go with that, the KJV and it's variants use the Textus Receptus as the underlying text, and the NASB and ESV use the Nestle-Aland text as the basis.....and what it (in bold) was based on. It just just drop out of the sky.

Sirus
Apr 6th 2010, 11:37 PM
With all due respect, that simply isn't true. The KJV translators only had access to relatively few late date Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine text type. Research. This is not true.

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 7th 2010, 01:21 AM
As Nomad offered, there is a difference in texts here. Take a look at this link on Studylight.org (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=lu+9%3A55+-+56&section=0&it=kjv&oq=lu%25209%3A55%2520-%252056&ot=bhs&nt=tr&new=1&nb=lu&ng=9&ncc=9) . You should see some radio box selections for the greek manuscripts source. My understanding is that the KJV uses the Textus Receptus and the NASB uses the Nestle'-Aland 26. You can use the selection box on the right to select the NASB Strong's Version and then select the Nestle' manuscripts to view the translation of the NASB. There is quite a bit of difference on these verses.


Hi watchinginawe,
Thanks for the link.

I tried it and Textus Receptus says:
9:55

strafeiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4762) de (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1161) epetimhsen (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2008) autoiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846) kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) eipen (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2036) ouk (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3756) oidate (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1492) oiou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3634) pneumatov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151) este (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2075) umeiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5210)


9:56
o (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) gar (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1063) uiov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5207) tou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) anyrwpou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=444) ouk (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3756) hlyen (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2064) qucav (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5590) anyrwpwn (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=444) apolesai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=622) alla (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=235) swsai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4982) kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) eporeuyhsan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4198) eiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1519) eteran (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2087) kwmhn (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2968)


Nestle-Aland says:
9:55

strafeiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4762) (5651 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5651)) de (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1161) epetimhsen (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2008) (5656 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5656)) autoiv. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=846)


9:56
kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) eporeuqhsan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4198) (5675 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5675)) eiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1519) eteran (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2087) kwmhn. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2968)


The Byzantine text has the extras in Textus Receptus in brackets.



However how do I get the English words to display what the Greek texts are saying? Or is that not possible?



Thanks.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 7th 2010, 01:25 AM
This is precisely why one should only use the KJV....;)

Ok, I'm running out of here before I get hit with something.

(I'm a King James girl):saint:

OUCH!!! I think that banana peel missed you and hit me, as I also am in the KJV mush pot with you.

watchinginawe
Apr 9th 2010, 12:41 AM
However how do I get the English words to display what the Greek texts are saying? Or is that not possible?ThyWordIsTruth, try looking for the "side by side" feature. That will give you the greek words with the english words right beside them for the selected Bible I think. You can try chaning the manuscript but I think side by side is for the Bible selected, so do the KJV Strongs and then the NAS Strongs.

God Bless!

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 9th 2010, 10:16 AM
thanks for the tip!

Servant89
Apr 10th 2010, 08:09 PM
I don't know much about the different parchments that the KJV or other bibles are translated from, but I have a question as to why this verse is translated so differently between KJV and say ESV and other versions.

KJV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

ESV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
Luk 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them.
Luk 9:56 And they went on to another village.

NASB
54When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:54-56&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25348a)]?" 55But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56and[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:54-56&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25350b)] they went to another village.

There is a chunk of red text that's left out of the ESV and NASB as well as many other Bible versions. Was it because of differences in the manuscripts?

Thanks!

That is because man, who is obsessed with finding fault with what God gives us, had to scrub and look for reasons to demostrate that when Jesus said:

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mk 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Lk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Lk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

That he was not serious about it. Yeah, KJV or Reina Valera 1960 in Spanish.

Shalom

theBelovedDisciple
Apr 10th 2010, 08:24 PM
I would suggest to you to get a parallel bible; one that includes both the KJV along with several of the other newer translations like the NIV, NASB, etc....

That way, when there is a difference, you can see what it is and where it differs in the different manuscript types.

The good thing about textual criticism and the debate over which text-type is more accurate; is that 100% of the concepts and biblical teachings found in one family of manuscripts is also found in the other.

It may appear on the surface that some verses are being 'removed from the KJV' however, the newer translations aren't translating 'from' the KJV to begin with, so nothing is removed. Even of the parts that conflict,
no biblical Christian doctrine is sacrificed or omitted, but can be found in other passages, often in relation to the gospels, almost verbatim in one of the other gospel's from the one it appears to be missing from.

I used to use a Parallel Bible... with 3 different versions.. when I sought Him thru His Word... I always and most emphatically found myself going to the KJV Version... and I'll be bold in saying..

I love the KJV version.. many say its hard to read.. but I think its beautiful... and have no problem.. and its also easy to reference back to the Greek and Hebrew.. especially when using Strongs's concordance.. but then someobody will tell me that Concrodance is no good either.. or full of err...

I love the KJV.. I strongly believe God's Word is being watered down by 'man'.. in order to fit the times and his/her beliefs...

His Word is Eternal... but man will continue to try to adapt God to 'him/her'... but to no avail..

just my .10 cents for the day..

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 13th 2010, 09:11 AM
Hi BD,



I love the KJV.. I strongly believe God's Word is being watered down by 'man'.. in order to fit the times and his/her beliefs...

This might be true of bad translations like "The Message" and "TNIV" but it isn't true of accurate translations like the ESV. In fact some good modern translations correct a number of translation mistakes found in the KJV.


His Word is Eternal... but man will continue to try to adapt God to 'him/her'... but to no avail..
just my .10 cents for the day..

Well if we think about it carefully, the KJV was also translated to adapt God's word to 'him/her' because most people don't read Latin, Greek or Hebrew in the 1600s. It's no different now, some of us just prefer a more modern translation to one that uses archaic English where some English words no longer hold the same meaning.

Sirus
Apr 13th 2010, 11:58 PM
In fact some good modern translations correct a number of translation mistakes found in the KJV.that's subjective. Just because you think that does not make it true.

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 14th 2010, 01:59 AM
that's subjective. Just because you think that does not make it true.

Would you like an example?

Sirus
Apr 14th 2010, 02:03 AM
If you want to but it would be subjective.

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 14th 2010, 02:22 AM
If you want to but it would be subjective.

I'm surprised you made a conclusion even before seeing the proof my friend. What happened to intellectual honesty? :D

I'll give you one that is not subjective at all.

Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The word translated Easter in KJV is pascha. Pascha has no other translation but the passover (meal). There is no ambiguity whatsoever with that word.

The concept of "Easter" didn't come about till much later, thus Luke couldn't have possibly referred to such a thing as Easter because it simply didn't exist during his time.

Then there's the numerous translations of "mina" into the word "pounds." Pounds is an English currency, certainly didn't exist in the first century. This translation occurs in numerous places in Luke 19:13, 16, 18, 24 and 25.

This are minor but objective translation errors that even KJV purists do not deny. Then there're other more serious ones that actually does change the meaning of texts and give a wrong impression of the text's actual meaning. I'm not a KJV basher so I'm not really interested to go into a lengthy debate about this, just wanted to encourage people to have a balanced view of this issue, the KJV is a good translation but its far from perfect and shouldn't be put onto some kind of pedestal and worshipped or idolized.

Sirus
Apr 14th 2010, 02:40 AM
I'm surprised you made a conclusion even before seeing the proof my friend. What happened to intellectual honesty? :DI've studied this for 19 years. What can you show me I haven't seen?


I'll give you one that is not subjective at all.

Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

The word translated Easter in KJV is pascha. Pascha has no other translation but the passover (meal). There is no ambiguity whatsoever with that word.

The concept of "Easter" didn't come about till much later, thus Luke couldn't have possibly referred to such a thing as Easter because it simply didn't exist during his time.

Then there's the numerous translations of "mina" into the word "pounds." Pounds is an English currency, certainly didn't exist in the first century. This translation occurs in numerous places in Luke 19:13, 16, 18, 24 and 25. This is it? Seriously? Where's the doctrinal error?


This are minor but objective translation errors that even KJV purists do not deny. Then there're other more serious ones that actually does change the meaning of texts and give a wrong impression of the text's actual meaning. I'm not a KJV basher so I'm not really interested to go into a lengthy debate about this, just wanted to encourage people to have a balanced view of this issue, the KJV is a good translation but its far from perfect and shouldn't be put onto some kind of pedestal and worshipped or idolized.Funny, you didn't post "more serious ones that actually does change the meaning of texts and give a wrong impression of the text's actual meaning" :lol:
Give it up!

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 14th 2010, 04:43 AM
I've studied this for 19 years. What can you show me I haven't seen?

Such humility my friend!


This is it? Seriously? Where's the doctrinal error?
I hope you're not suffering from amnesia.

This was what I said:
In fact some good modern translations correct a number of translation mistakes found in the KJV.

to which you replied:
that's subjective. Just because you think that does not make it true.

After I gave you 2 translation errors, you instead say:
This is it? Seriously? Where's the doctrinal error?

Show me where I said translation errors = doctrinal error?


Funny, you didn't post "more serious ones that actually does change the meaning of texts and give a wrong impression of the text's actual meaning" :lol:
Give it up!So are you saying translation errors that do not result in doctrinal errors are not translation errors?

For more serious errors, look at the following:
Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

- bolded part is wrongly translated "and yet is." It should be "and is to come." Obviously this difference makes a huge difference on the dispensation of the beast. It would result in serious errors in the study of Eschatology if one just studied the KJV alone.

Rev 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

- bolded text is "Holy One" in all Greek manuscripts

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

- original meaning of the Greek of bolded part is "the Law." The meaning is that we have died to the Law, not that we were dead in the Law. Totally different meaning that can lead to theologically different understandings. The Jews were not dead in the Law, it was God's word for them before Christ. What Paul means is believers after Christ are now dead to the Law. Completely different meaning.

Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

- bolded part is found nowhere in any Greek manuscript. They are in the KJV because Erasmus added it to his Greek NT in 1516. Erasmus admitted that he took this part from the parallel verse in Acts 26:14, because they were in the Latin Vulgate and thus he suspected his Greek manuscripts were faulty, but he was later proven wrong, it was the Latin vulgate that is faulty, not his Greek manuscript. No Greek manuscript supports this insertion whatsoever, and is an indisputable error in the KJV.

Act 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
- correct translation of bolded part should be robbers of temples, not robbers of churches

There are many others, these are just a few examples that I hope will suffice. I really do not wish to be drawn into an argument on this issue, so this will be my last post on this.

Peace.

yoshiyahu
Apr 14th 2010, 05:13 AM
2Ki 1:12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

The obvious reference is found here in the Old Testament. I don't know all of the details about the different manuscripts. But common sense tells me that the writer knew of the story about Elijah and so did the disciples asking Jesus the question. Even with the specific reference removed, a jewish audience would automatically think about Elijah.
If some manuscripts have it and some don't, my common sense thinking leads me to believe that the ones with it are the more reliable manuscripts since the other ones are missing part of the verse.

yoshiyahu
Apr 14th 2010, 05:18 AM
This is why a lot of scholars think one of the two witnesses will be Elijah....



Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
Rev 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

Sirus
Apr 14th 2010, 05:18 AM
Such humility my friend!This has to do with.....?


This was what I said:
In fact some good modern translations correct a number of translation mistakes found in the KJV.

to which you replied:
that's subjective. Just because you think that does not make it true.

After I gave you 2 translation errors, you instead say:
This is it? Seriously? Where's the doctrinal error?

Show me where I said translation errors = doctrinal error?You can't mean more than this.


So are you saying translation errors that do not result in doctrinal errors are not translation errors?I am saying the examples you gave are not errors at all. The Greek is the same throughout and easy to understand needing no interpretation whatsoever. Easter is very odd and should not have been used, but the time of year is of no significance. Pound (a certain weight) is absolutely correct. You just have not studied it through. Mina does not exist as any currency and never has. What do you suggest the English word be? Hmmmm??? Mina is not a certain currency, it is a certain weight. What weight and what currency would you like to inject into the text? Will it work in all English speaking countries?
Nope.

Sirus
Apr 14th 2010, 05:24 AM
For more serious errors, look at the following:
Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

- bolded part is wrongly translated "and yet is." It should be "and is to come." Obviously this difference makes a huge difference on the dispensation of the beast. It would result in serious errors in the study of Eschatology if one just studied the KJV alone.

Rev 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

- bolded text is "Holy One" in all Greek manuscripts

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

- original meaning of the Greek of bolded part is "the Law." The meaning is that we have died to the Law, not that we were dead in the Law. Totally different meaning that can lead to theologically different understandings. The Jews were not dead in the Law, it was God's word for them before Christ. What Paul means is believers after Christ are now dead to the Law. Completely different meaning.

Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

- bolded part is found nowhere in any Greek manuscript. They are in the KJV because Erasmus added it to his Greek NT in 1516. Erasmus admitted that he took this part from the parallel verse in Acts 26:14, because they were in the Latin Vulgate and thus he suspected his Greek manuscripts were faulty, but he was later proven wrong, it was the Latin vulgate that is faulty, not his Greek manuscript. No Greek manuscript supports this insertion whatsoever, and is an indisputable error in the KJV.

Act 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
- correct translation of bolded part should be robbers of temples, not robbers of churches

There are many others, these are just a few examples that I hope will suffice. I really do not wish to be drawn into an argument on this issue, so this will be my last post on this.

Peace.That's good because tomorrow I will show you should not have ventured into this to begin with.

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 14th 2010, 06:52 AM
Mina does not exist as any currency and never has. What do you suggest the English word be? Hmmmm??? Mina is not a certain currency, it is a certain weight. What weight and what currency would you like to inject into the text? Will it work in all English speaking countries?
Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina_unit

The mina, like the shekel, was also a unit of currency; in ancient Greece it was equal to 100 drachmae.

Sirus
Apr 15th 2010, 05:04 AM
Sorry, don't see it. You'll have to do better by links. I did taxes tonight so I am not able to reply as I promised. I apologize. ugh taxes.....

ThyWordIsTruth
Apr 15th 2010, 05:58 AM
sorry, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina_%28unit%29

Also here, look under currency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_units_of_measurement

What was the unit of currency in Ancient Greece?

http://en.site2.answers.com/templates/icons/abar_a.gif?v=66931 The Greek currency was made up mainly of the talent, mina, stater, drachma and obulus. Here is the relationship. 1 talent 600 mina 1 mina 100 drachma 1 stater 2 drachma 1 drachma 6 obolus

More from a site specializing in coins both ancient and modern:
http://silvercoinand.com/money-in-ancient-greece-drachma.html

Sirus
Apr 16th 2010, 02:29 AM
That's not what I meant by I don't see it. Sorry for the confusion.
The Holy Ghost for the same parable in Matthew 25 uses talent (talanton) and Luke 19 uses pound (mna). Both represent a unit of measure. For the most part, Matthew was written to Israel and Luke to Greeks. Both written by one Spirit using two words to two audiences. This done in parable on top of that. The existence of a talent or a mina is completely irrelevant, not effecting doctrine. In the parable they represent a unit of measure and nothing more.

Sirus
Apr 16th 2010, 03:08 AM
Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

- bolded part is wrongly translated "and yet is." It should be "and is to come." Obviously this difference makes a huge difference on the dispensation of the beast. It would result in serious errors in the study of Eschatology if one just studied the KJV alone.'although' (kaiper) is not translated 'is to come' anywhere in scripture. -Phi 3:4, Heb 5:8, Heb 7:5, Heb 12:17, 2Pe 1:12

The word 'though' -and yet is , is a conjunction [explanation to follow].
'Is to come' is not a conjunction.

It should be read this way


Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and [conjunction] yet is........explanation->
Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
Strictly


Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is [though]
Rev 17:9 And [here is the mind which hath wisdom]......The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev 17:10 And there are seven heads are seven mountains: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
the beast that thou saw, is not
in the future he will be.....
in the future they that dwell on the earth will behold -->
seven heads are seven mountains
the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth -future
ten kings which have received no kingdom as yet
but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

You have not even looked at the Greek much less corrected a translation from the Greek.

Sirus
Apr 16th 2010, 04:54 AM
Rev 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

- bolded text is "Holy One" in all Greek manuscriptsAll? In the minority yes but....
Beza added it according to pattern. No doctrine or meaning effected here -no error.

Sirus
Apr 16th 2010, 05:05 AM
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

- original meaning of the Greek of bolded part is "the Law." The meaning is that we have died to the Law, not that we were dead in the Law. Totally different meaning that can lead to theologically different understandings. The Jews were not dead in the Law, it was God's word for them before Christ. What Paul means is believers after Christ are now dead to the Law. Completely different meaning.The law is found before that being dead wherein we were held.
and
What you have said is what the KJV says. I have no idea why you have posted this one. I see the same.

Nomad
Apr 16th 2010, 09:21 PM
'although' (kaiper) is not translated 'is to come' anywhere in scripture. -Phi 3:4, Heb 5:8, Heb 7:5, Heb 12:17, 2Pe 1:12

The problem here is that there is a textual variant between the TR and the NA27. The TR reads καιπερ εστιν (and yet is). The NA27 reads καὶ παρέσται (and shall come).





The word 'though' -and yet is , is a conjunction [explanation to follow].
'Is to come' is not a conjunction.

"Kaiper" (καιπερ) does not mean "and yet is." It means "and yet."

"And yet is" is a translation of καιπερ εστιν.

Gillian
Apr 16th 2010, 10:28 PM
Hello

I like KJV too. it my reason for it because it more water tight on words, verses that speficlly you find what u looking for in wordings many versions I know lacked it, Im kinda of a sticker for grammer wordings, to understand God. (not that im good at writing or spelling).

Radagast
Apr 17th 2010, 08:55 AM
There is a chunk of red text that's left out of the ESV and NASB as well as many other Bible versions. Was it because of differences in the manuscripts?

The answer is in the ESV's footnote: Luke 9:55 Some manuscripts add and he said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man came not to destroy people’s lives but to save them”

The oldest manuscripts do not have these words.

Radagast
Apr 17th 2010, 08:57 AM
Im kinda of a sticker for grammer wordings, to understand God.

In that case, you should read the ESV, which is closer to the original grammar.

Gillian
Apr 17th 2010, 01:43 PM
Hi
I have compared them online by most effected verses. ESV is really good, better then KJV in orginal, by look of it. For me it not quite matter in it orignal traslation earilest then this, boldness and empsais if need on plain sayings.

My view of wordings to bible like, Im alway english learning greek or early langaue not going to bring me closer to understanding God in all proper contect. Matter of spirit understanding at clearest and inspirtion confirmed by brain learning.
same for ESV which wordings from I find is MORE closer to oringal. but in spiritaul clarfiy I find KJV do bit more then ESV, just a bit!

in clarfiy of wordings, KJV put more boldness or empsais when need, so plainer in saying.

the boldness and plain in my eyes make God more inimate personallly in sense with boldness.


I may buy ESV soon for orginal txts sake and easy to read sake but I alway use KJV for it most clarfiy and proper context sake. not counting music sounding sweet to soul inspired.

In my case, learning any versions do, ESV

learning understanding meat by proper context and initmated God taken away mystry of Him by NT plainest from OT, clarfiy with empasis and boldness
about God

are to be confirmed by Holy Spirit in spiritaul eyes. with grammer wordings as ESV AND KJV had but EVS lack direactly or empsais at times. confirmed in spiritaul inspiertion and right understanding -KJV win on this point alone. like NT win on that point alone not the veiled OT.

but really, whatever versions we grow up read on it own, person due to his learninsg happen to be more wisdom liek a child, in rightous understanding due to his/her heart in proper contexts never the wordingS of grammers, person can be better in widsdom of proper understanding without KJV. Versions each to it own are exellcellent for it own insipertion ways and help. Thank God there are many, as indivudals in their learnings get it better in certin ways of their perfenace to their understanding. wording is second whatever versions to proper contexts by holy spirit in you first, depend on your heart.


I suppose as way I think tyciapal of life, so KJV pretty much match in my perfeance and that way, depth, wanting to understand in God way and every words!!! why that a? why commas there? why say this nessucary or it not? etc would it revel more then i think? why past tense why no now. why wisdom declared full stop i have beginning at same time nope i have no beginning. so seeemly tycipal crodactions of God sayings.

Gillian





well today english just of it own alway looser then old english was itself.

BadDog
Apr 19th 2010, 12:43 AM
I don't know much about the different parchments that the KJV or other bibles are translated from, but I have a question as to why this verse is translated so differently between KJV and say ESV and other versions.

KJV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

ESV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
Luk 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them.
Luk 9:56 And they went on to another village.

NASB
54When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:54-56&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25348a)]?" 55But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56and[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:54-56&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25350b)] they went to another village.

There is a chunk of red text that's left out of the ESV and NASB as well as many other Bible versions. Was it because of differences in the manuscripts?

Thanks!
ThyWordIsTruth,

Several have hit the nail on head already. yes, it is due to differences in the Greek manuscripts used in translating the KJV and the NKJV as compared to those used for modern translations. Actually, the argument is pretty strong in this instance for the Greek texts used with modern translations.

Take care,

BD

Forgive
Jun 16th 2018, 08:49 PM
Yay, I can post!

This is how I found this forum topic:
https://i.imgur.com/rLsQGxs.png

"You do not know which spirit you serve," is the harshest admonishment. Jesus Christ and God said this to indicate the intensity of his desire. "If you had understood what was meant by 'I desire Mercy, not Sacrifice', then you would not have condemned the innocent. The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath."

As for the rest of the replies on this forum topic, "I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and educated and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure." ...

lovegospel
Jun 25th 2018, 09:06 AM
I don't know much about the different parchments that the KJV or other bibles are translated from, but I have a question as to why this verse is translated so differently between KJV and say ESV and other versions.

KJV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

ESV
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
Luk 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them.
Luk 9:56 And they went on to another village.

NASB
54When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:54-56&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25348a)]?" 55But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56and[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209:54-56&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25350b)] they went to another village.

There is a chunk of red text that's left out of the ESV and NASB as well as many other Bible versions. Was it because of differences in the manuscripts?

Thanks!
I WOULD SAY, STICK WITH KJV. IT IS THE BEST VERSION

glfglf
Jun 26th 2018, 09:11 AM
I enjoy and use both the KJV and the NASB, but here is why I give the KJV the preeminence.
Gal 2:11 KJV "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
Gal 2:11 NASB "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."
Rom 8:1 NASB "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
Rom 8:1 KJV "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Here we see the NASB telling us that there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus. And at the same time it tells us that Peter stood condemned.
The KJV tells us that there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk after the Spirit.
So the one who reads the NASB can end up thinking that they are not condemned, when they actually are, like Peter was while he was visiting the church in Antioch.

jayne
Jun 26th 2018, 03:41 PM
I enjoy and use both the KJV and the NASB, but here is why I give the KJV the preeminence.
Gal 2:11 KJV "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
Gal 2:11 NASB "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."
Rom 8:1 NASB "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
Rom 8:1 KJV "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Here we see the NASB telling us that there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus. And at the same time it tells us that Peter stood condemned.
The KJV tells us that there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk after the Spirit.
So the one who reads the NASB can end up thinking that they are not condemned, when they actually are, like Peter was while he was visiting the church in Antioch.

I'm afraid that you are comparing apples and oranges.

When the Bible speaks of "no more condemnation" for those in Christ, it is referring to condemnation from God. God no longer condemns the Christian as he does the lost. The lost are condemned already. Not so the Christian and they never will be condemned again by God.

Paul had already privately, out of respect, rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy. Now that Peter show hypocrisy again by having fear in his his heart of certain Jews and trying to appease them by outwardly following some of their traditions, Paul "openly" rebukes Peter for it.

When Paul says that Peter stands condemned - he mean blamed - but not by God. Peter is a Christian, but he is modeling a woeful teaching. Paul is "blaming" him for that and Paul condemned that action, NOT the whole man.