# Top 3 English Translations



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 18, 2003)

Ok now besides having the original greek and hebrew both of which im illiterate in.
Which 3 english translatiosn would you suggest be the best for me to study with.

bladestunner316:wr6:

[edited to correct spelling....the word English was originally spelled &quot;Engilsh&quot; in the title] 

[Edited on 6-21-03 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 18, 2003)

NKJ, NASB, ESV
Jay P. Green has and excellent &quot;literal&quot; translation!


----------



## grace2U (Jun 18, 2003)

NKJV is best
KJV is fine if thou likest olde Engish.
These use the Received Text which I prefer to the Critical (Majority Text would be better still, but I await a MT Bible).
NASB and ESB are good if you like the CT.
NIV is poor, the rest are rubbish. We want God's words, not what someone else thinks God would have said if He'd been as clever as the translator!
Blessings,
Steve


----------



## blhowes (Jun 18, 2003)

[b:3d1296c4b4]grace2U wrote:[/b:3d1296c4b4]
NASB and ESB are good if you like the CT.

CT...Does that stand for covenant theology or critical text? 

Bob


----------



## grace2U (Jun 18, 2003)

Hi Bob!
Sorry, I meant Critical Text as in Nestle/Aland
Blessings,
Steve


----------



## RICK (Jun 18, 2003)

If you're doing inductive study, NKJV, NASB or ESV.

For general reading, NIV.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 18, 2003)

[quote:1387a00f03][i:1387a00f03]Originally posted by RICK[/i:1387a00f03]
If you're doing inductive study, NKJV, NASB or ESV.

For general reading, NIV. [/quote:1387a00f03]

I agree with the NKJV, NASB and ESV. I would not use the NIV for anything beyond study to know what it says in a given instance -- and usually to see how it butchers a passage.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2003)

YLT, NASB, MKJV.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jun 18, 2003)

ESV, NASB (1977), &amp; NASB (1995)

in that order

But there is nothing quite like working with the original languages on their own unique terms. A translation is still a translation. There's a professor of the biblical languages who tells his students that reading a translation is like being kissed through cellophane - however ardent and well-planted the kiss, it lacks a certain immediacy.  That is not to say, however, that one must be fluent in the languages in order to read and understand Scripture; but there is a lack of emphasis on the languages in our local churches that should be corrected.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 18, 2003)

DC - quite true.

Do any of your churches teach Greek or Hebrew?


----------



## doulosChristou (Jun 18, 2003)

[quote:7a1d9028a7][i:7a1d9028a7]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:7a1d9028a7]
DC - quite true.

Do any of your churches teach Greek or Hebrew? [/quote:7a1d9028a7] My church will be offering a free first year Greek course on Sunday afternoons starting this Fall. We have done so in the past to great interest. We are also looking at putting together an advanced course, probably using Wallace and the NA27. I personally tutor a young man in NT Greek on Saturdays using Colwell's little reader. We have 2 guys who are fluent in Hebrew, and I am encouraging them to teach the rest of us. I've dabbled in Hebrew on my own but have no formal study in it yet. I believe, based on the principle we have in 2Tim.2:2, that local churches should in essence be their own seminaries - teaching church history, the languages, theology, etc. That we send qualified men &quot;out&quot; of the local church for training under someone else's authority is indicative of a problem, In my humble opinion.

In Christ, dC


----------



## pastorway (Jun 18, 2003)

NKJV, ESV, NASB in that order.

Phillip


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 18, 2003)

Thanks for the help guys are there good comparrisons on the web on translations??

bladestunner316:wr8:


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jun 21, 2003)

Message, Living, Good News for Modern Man


----------



## cupotea (Jun 21, 2003)

Why don't you guys like the NIV? That is what I have always used... I was given a NKJV at my highschool graduation, but as of yet have not noticed a huge difference between the two.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jun 21, 2003)

[quote:866c7ee013][i:866c7ee013]Originally posted by calvinistkid[/i:866c7ee013]
Why don't you guys like the NIV? That is what I have always used... I was given a NKJV at my highschool graduation, but as of yet have not noticed a huge difference between the two. [/quote:866c7ee013] One of the weaknesses of the NIV is that its vocabulary is toned down to a 3rd grade reading level (you won't find the word &quot;propitiation&quot; anywhere in your NIV). Readability (easy reading) was the driving force behind the NIV; verbal accuracy was not. Rather than a word for word translation, the NIV translators went for more of a concept for concept translation. All this allows for much more commentary within the translation and for less accuracy. 

As for the NKJV or KJV, they too have weaknesses that keep them off my top 3 list. Namely, they are translated from an inferior Greek manuscript which contains errors. R.C. Sproul explains:

&quot;One fact concerning the King James Version [all of the following applies to the NKJV also] cannot and must not be ignored: the King James Version is simply [b:866c7ee013]less accurate in its representation of the original writings of Scrtipture[/b:866c7ee013] than most modern translations. There is a crucial historical reason for this. The Greek text from which the King James Version was translated (the [i:866c7ee013]Textus Receptus[/i:866c7ee013]) is [b:866c7ee013]clearly inferior[/b:866c7ee013] to more modern reconstructed Greek texts. [b:866c7ee013]Many texual errors[/b:866c7ee013] found in the King James Version have been eliminated by more recent translations. Manuscript discoveries since the sixteenth century have greatly enriched our knowledge of the original texts. ... If we are interested in [b:866c7ee013]accuracy[/b:866c7ee013] and [b:866c7ee013]purity[/b:866c7ee013] of biblical translation, we must go beyond the King James Bible.&quot; [Sproul, R.C. [b:866c7ee013]Knowing Scripture[/b:866c7ee013] Intervarsity Press; Downer's Grove, IL: 1977, pp.117-118.] Emphasis mine.

Grace and peace, dC


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 21, 2003)

[quote:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]Originally posted by calvinistkid[/i:995693c15f]
Why don't you guys like the NIV? That is what I have always used... I was given a NKJV at my highschool graduation, but as of yet have not noticed a huge difference between the two. [/quote:995693c15f]

Kid,

The quickest way to address this is to say that the NIV uses a fundamentally flawed method of translation called &quot;dynamic equivalence.&quot; What that basically means is that instead of translating words (i.e. nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc) it translates &quot;thought for thought.&quot; the only problem is that the Bible is plenarally verbally (word) inspired not thought inspired. Actual words have importance to the Scripture. The NIV does this in order to &quot;be more readable&quot; to the modern man.

Let me give you just one example. 1 Peter 1:13 is translated as follows:


[quote:995693c15f]
[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NIV[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
Therefore, [u:995693c15f]prepare your minds for action[/u:995693c15f]; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed


[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NKJV[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
Therefore [u:995693c15f]gird up the loins of your mind[/u:995693c15f], be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]Young's Literal Translation[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
Wherefore [u:995693c15f]having girded up the loins of your mind[/u:995693c15f], being sober, hope perfectly upon the grace that is being brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ[/quote:995693c15f]

If we take a look at the underlined portion, we may think that there is not much difference. But we also know from our theology (verbal inspiration) that there is a [b:995693c15f]reason[/b:995693c15f] that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write &quot;gird up the loins of your mind&quot; and not &quot;be prepared&quot;. Greek certainly has a word for &quot;be prepared.&quot; It is not even an uncommon word. In fact, &quot;gird up the loins of your mind&quot; is not even a common Attic or Greek idiom for &quot;be prepared.&quot;

So there must be something else at work here. Well, if will help if we try and think about where else &quot;gird up&quot; is used in Scripture. The word used in 1 Peter 1:13 [size=15:995693c15f](anazwnnumi)[/size:995693c15f] is closely related to the word used in John 13:4-5 [size=15:995693c15f](diazwnnumi)[/size:995693c15f] , where Christ girds himself (so KJV) and washes the disciples feet. It is also used in John 21:7, where Peter girds himself to jump into the water and see his resurrected Lord. Similar cognates can be found in Luke 12:37; Luke 17:8; and Acts 12:8, where the idea of girding oneself for [u:995693c15f]service[/u:995693c15f] is in view.

Now we have all these connotations, which would obviously be in view for Peter (since he wrote this), and we have lost this completely, since the translators of the NIV decided that it was too burdensome on readers to understand the concept that if men were to be prepared to act and serve, they would need to bind up their long flowing robes to get them out of the way. Does this make sense?

Secondly and finally for now, the NIV also just plain blunders many passages. The worst in my mind is John 1:13, which is the dumbest example of a mistranslation I think I have ever seen. Even the NLT get this right:

[quote:995693c15f]
[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NIV[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or [u:995693c15f]a husband's will[/u:995693c15f], but born of God.

[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NASB[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God

[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NKJV[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God

[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NLT[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
They are reborn! This is not a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan--this rebirth comes from God[/quote:995693c15f]

As you can see, the NIV translators make the inexplicable decision to translate [size=15:995693c15f]aner[/size:995693c15f] as husband. It just makes absolutely no sense in this context. It is quite frankly evidence of sloppiness and laziness.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I haven't even touched on the Critical Text v. Majority Text issue yet.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 21, 2003)

[quote:33866f3a23][i:33866f3a23]Originally posted by doulosChristou[/i:33866f3a23]
As for the NKJV or KJV, they too have weaknesses that keep them off my top 3 list. Namely, they are translated from an inferior Greek manuscript which contains errors. R.C. Sproul explains:

&quot;One fact concerning the King James Version [all of the following applies to the NKJV also] cannot and must not be ignored: the King James Version is simply [b:33866f3a23]less accurate in its representation of the original writings of Scrtipture[/b:33866f3a23] than most modern translations. There is a crucial historical reason for this. The Greek text from which the King James Version was translated (the [i:33866f3a23]Textus Receptus[/i:33866f3a23]) is [b:33866f3a23]clearly inferior[/b:33866f3a23] to more modern reconstructed Greek texts. [b:33866f3a23]Many texual errors[/b:33866f3a23] found in the King James Version have been eliminated by more recent translations. Manuscript discoveries since the sixteenth century have greatly enriched our knowledge of the original texts. ... If we are interested in [b:33866f3a23]accuracy[/b:33866f3a23] and [b:33866f3a23]purity[/b:33866f3a23] of biblical translation, we must go beyond the King James Bible.&quot; [Sproul, R.C. [b:33866f3a23]Knowing Scripture[/b:33866f3a23] Intervarsity Press; Downer's Grove, IL: 1977, pp.117-118.] Emphasis mine.

Grace and peace, dC [/quote:33866f3a23]

Respectfully, I would have to disagree with RC. To say that God did not providentially preserve His word in its proper form for a few hundred years (remember that Vaticanus and Synaticus were out of existence -- in garbage cans, literally, from about 300 A.D. to 1700 A.D. ) is a dangerous position. Remember that many of the differences are not trivial. If we take this position, we must say that God misled His people into thinking that the end Mark 16 and the passage about the cripple at the well in John 5 were actually part of the Bible when they are not.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 21, 2003)

Fred,
Is there a good website that goes over the differences in the NIV?

bladestunner316:wr48:


----------



## doulosChristou (Jun 21, 2003)

[quote:e0b0f90510][i:e0b0f90510]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e0b0f90510]
Respectfully, I would have to disagree with RC. To say that God did not providentially preserve His word in its proper form for a few hundred years (remember that Vaticanus and Synaticus were out of existence -- in garbage cans, literally, from about 300 A.D. to 1700 A.D. ) is a dangerous position. Remember that many of the differences are not trivial. If we take this position, we must say that God misled His people into thinking that the end Mark 16 and the passage about the cripple at the well in John 5 were actually part of the Bible when they are not. [/quote:e0b0f90510] How long was God's word buried and forgotten by the time it was found and brought to King Josiah? Your argument that it was God who misled the church during the dark ages is unconvincing. Surely, you do not argue that 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV/NKJV was penned by John, do you? The overwhelming evidence and testimony of our finest Greek manuscripts is against it. The added words simply do not appear in our earliest manuscripts. It is a clear example of scribal addition, and I do not think it is dangerous for R.C. to say so. Sproul, having served on the New King James Bible Review Committee as it was assembled, carries a lot of weight on this one. James White and D. A. Carson, in both their books against KJV-onlyism, point out the same facts. Good work on citing examples where the NIV distorts the text.

In Christ, dC


----------



## pastorway (Jun 21, 2003)

[quote:aa85e45da9][i:aa85e45da9]posted by puritanpilgrim[/i:aa85e45da9]
Message, Living, Good News for Modern Man [/quote:aa85e45da9]

I hope you were kidding. If not, I am more than willing to buy you a real Bible.


:biggrin:


And Fred is correct about the NIV. We are dumbing down the church. Part of the problem is theological. Another part is that we think we need to make God's Word more simple. Why? Just because people cannot read past a third grade level, does that mean we should work to bring the Word to that level, or should it mean that we strive to be effective teachers of the Word, making the meaning plain for our hearers?

The fundamental issue though is the word for word vs thought for thought translation. Check out Alpha and Omega Ministries site for more details on the issue. James White has done some excellent work in the field! http://aomin.org 


Phillip


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 21, 2003)

Here! Here!

One of the greatest gifts from the church to society in general has been a literate public. Now, we are acquiessing to the lowest common denominator. Sad. Very sad. This also is playing a factor in the 'regendering' of our language.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2003)

[quote:808e22af6c]
Now, we are acquiessing to the lowest common denominator.
[/quote:808e22af6c]

Please explain what you mean by this statement. It seems to me like Christ acquiessed to the lowest common denominator many times. He told the TRUTH in simple terms. We must be able to explain Reformed doctrines to children, the simple minded, the unlearned, as well as the educated and the scholar. I AGREE that the NIV is a poor translation. There are better ones we can use. We need to explain the difficulties with the more literal translations with those whom we are speaking. We need to be all things to all people. So, please explain what you meant by that statement.

[Edited on 6-21-2003 by Visigoth]


----------



## grace2U (Jun 22, 2003)

A quick example of an NIV blooper:-
John 11:5-6, NIV: 'Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, YET when He heard that Lazarus was sick, He stayed where He was for two more days'.
NKJV (and most other translations): Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, SO when He heard that he was sick, He stayed two more days in the place where He was'.
The Greek word translated 'yet' in the NIV and 'so' in the NKJV is 'oun'. It always means 'so' or 'therefore'. This is quite important; it is one thing to tell a new believer that even though The Lord Jesus loves him, He may not answer his prayers; what we should be saying is that it is BECAUSE He loves Him that He may not answer his prayers (Heb 12:5ff).
Blessings,
Steve

[Edited on 6-22-2003 by grace2U]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 22, 2003)

Its interesting hearing all this stuff about the NIV since ive been raised on it its just recently(past year) on my own accord that I have started using the NKJV which I love. What about translations such as the RSV and The English Bible?
Also my grandmother uses theLiving Bible which she absolutely loves and her church uses the MEssage Alot. What About those translations?

bladestunnner316:wr48:


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 23, 2003)

Vis,
Thanks for the question. The LCD that I to which I was referring is not the presentation of the gospel or the precepts of Scripture. Rather, it was the translated text. Many Christians today are reading 'bibles' that are not faithful representaions of the orginal. Intepretative work must be done in transalation, but sometimes it is taken too far and removes the detail from the text. If one holds to plenary verbal inspiration this is serious business. I believe that young children can be taught to read at a much higher level than the 'experts' say. My seven year old daughter has been reading from the NASB for her entire reading life (an average child can begin reading simply by age three) and is growing from it. When she cannot understand a grammatical structure or vocabulary it prompts a question from her and . . . voila! Education takes place. This same principle applies to adults as well.

Lawrence


----------



## RICK (Jun 23, 2003)

I hope no one will take offense at this, but I don't see what the big deal is with the ESV. It seems like a warmed-over Revised Standard Version, if you ask me. In fact, it's almost identical.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 23, 2003)

[quote:cc4af25fa9][i:cc4af25fa9]Originally posted by RICK[/i:cc4af25fa9]
I hope no one will take offense at this, but I don't see what the big deal is with the ESV. It seems like a warmed-over Revised Standard Version, if you ask me. In fact, it's almost identical. [/quote:cc4af25fa9]

Rick,

Generally I agree with you; but then again I don't have much use for the Critical Text. The one advantage that I think the ESV has is some corrections of old RSV errors (e.g. the &quot;young woman&quot; not &quot;virgin&quot; passage in Isaiah).


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Jun 24, 2003)

Does anyone own a &quot;new&quot; copy of the Geneva Bible? If so, how do you like it?

P.S.

I think you can buy one for $99.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 24, 2003)

new copy when did they come out with a new copy????

bladestunner316:wr8:


----------



## grace2U (Jun 24, 2003)

*Re: N.T. Texts*

Those theologians who favour the Critical Text (Nestle/Aland) are following secular principles of textual criticism. Before I was converted I did a Degree in Classical Languages and we were told that if there was a disagreement between texts, the older one was more likely to be accurate because it had probably been copied fewer times.
This is fine for most classical authors, where there are only three or four manuscripts in existence, but when you come to the NT, there are literally hundreds to choose from and the huge majority are in close agreement with each other. In addition, we have biblical quotations from the Church Fathers which tell us what sort of Bible they had in front of them.
The fact is that the Received Text (KJV &amp; NKJV) is much closer to the majority of manuscripts than the Critical Text which is largely based on just two (admittedly older) texts. I do not think it is right to throw out the witness of a thousand or more copyists who are in substantial agreement with each other for the sake of just a few on the other side. Therefore I prefer the NKJV to either the ESV or the NASB.
Anyone who is interested in this subject should read the works of Dean John Burgon whose scholarship in this area is just awesome.
Blessings,
Steve


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 24, 2003)

I agree with Steve, especially given the concept of providential preservation that I raised earlier.

With respect to dC, I think that there is a world of difference between an issue surrounding one verse (1 Jn 5:7) and deleting entire passages. Also, the Johannine Comma issue is really not an issue for the MT, since it does not appear in the MT. It is an addition by Erasmus into the TR from the Vulgate. The text itself does not have that problem. But the Critical text does indeed, on the basis of two manuscripts that were found (literally) in the garbage, delete entire half chapters of what was assumed to be God's word for several hundred years. I wonder what we would do if we found 3 manuscripts today that dated from 100 A.D. that had no chapter 4 of Ephesians for example. Would we simply say that &quot;the older texts are better&quot; and place a footnote in Ephesians that &quot;teh oldests and best texts do not recognize this chapter&quot;?


----------



## jfschultz (Jun 25, 2003)

[quote:c61aed648d][i:c61aed648d]Originally posted by ChristianasJourney[/i:c61aed648d]
Does anyone own a &quot;new&quot; copy of the Geneva Bible? If so, how do you like it?

P.S.

I think you can buy one for $99. [/quote:c61aed648d]

From the price, I assume that this is the 1599 Geneva Bible printed by L.L. Brown. This is a facsimile copy. So it has the 1599 type style and spelling. (Have you been &quot;foued&quot;? :bigsmile: ) It is surprising that with its size the print is rather small, and the notes even smaller. So you might want to make sure you have a good magnifing glass.

I have been going through the WSC creating a WP file where the Geneva Bible text and notes are used for the scripture references. Though the Westminster Assembly took place after the KJV, it took half a century for the KJV to overtake the Geneva Bible. Also the type of theologians gathered were probably &quot;late adopters&quot; of the KJV and would be familiar with Geneva.

I doing this, I found that Geneva has readings that are more Calvinist than KJV. Not being a Greek or Hebrew scholar, I have no basis to tell whether Geneva or KJV is closer to the original. But the sense of the KJV has held sway in the later translations.

[Edited on 6-25-2003 by jfschultz]


----------



## RICK (Jun 25, 2003)

*A Question on the Preservation View*

Would a translation based on the majority text meet the standard for preservation?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 25, 2003)

[quote:841b60e20f][i:841b60e20f]Originally posted by RICK[/i:841b60e20f]
Would a translation based on the majority text meet the standard for preservation? [/quote:841b60e20f]

Yes.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 1, 2003)

[quote:048e2f1447][i:048e2f1447]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:048e2f1447]
These use the Received Text which I prefer to the Critical (Majority Text would be better still, but I await a MT Bible). [/quote:048e2f1447] For all you MT fans out there, there is now an English translation of the MT called the English Majority Text 
Version (EMTV) available in print form for $20.50 or in electronic form for free:

http://www.emtvonline.com/

As for me, I prefer the NA27.

dC


----------



## RICK (Jul 1, 2003)

[quote:9f319422ca]As for me, I prefer the NA27. [/quote:9f319422ca]

What's that?


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 1, 2003)

[quote:7648557e5c][i:7648557e5c]Originally posted by RICK[/i:7648557e5c]
[quote:7648557e5c]As for me, I prefer the NA27. [/quote:7648557e5c]

What's that? [/quote:7648557e5c] The Nestle Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament, which is the standard critical edition of the Greek New Testament and superior, in my estimation, to the TR and the MT. The Nestle-Aland text is also used in the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, 4th edition - only the textual apparatus differs.

dC



[Edited on 7-1-2003 by doulosChristou]


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 1, 2003)

[quote:4fc7e9c4df][i:4fc7e9c4df]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:4fc7e9c4df]
Those theologians who favour the Critical Text (Nestle/Aland) are following [b:4fc7e9c4df]secular[/b:4fc7e9c4df] principles of textual criticism.[/quote:4fc7e9c4df]Yuor statement is inaccurate. Textual criticism had its origens among [b:4fc7e9c4df]Christian[/b:4fc7e9c4df] scholars in the church and the principles of textual criticism used today are not new. &quot;Those who are anxious to know the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected.&quot; -- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 2, chap. 14 (paragraph 21).

[u:4fc7e9c4df]Augustine[/u:4fc7e9c4df]

The following passage from Augustine (from his De Consens. Evang. book 3, chapter 7, paragraph 29) shows in what way that Father of the church met the problem of various readings in the manuscripts. The text under discussion is Matthew 27:9-10, &quot;Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me.&quot; The English translation of Augustine's Latin is from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 1, ed. Philip Schaff; vol. 6, St. Augustine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans reprint, 1974), p. 191.

&quot;Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken "by the prophet." It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken "by the prophet, saying," which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah.&quot;

Other examples of Augustine's textual criticism are given by David Schaff in the Introduction to volume 6 of the series Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers:

&quot;Augustin's textual and grammatical comments are few in number, but they cannot be said to be wanting in all value. A few instances will suffice for a judgment of their merit:-

In the Harmony of the Gospels (ii. 29, 67), writing of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 29), he mentions that some codices contain the reading &quot;woman&quot; (mulier) for &quot;damsel.&quot; Commenting on Matt. v. 22, &quot;Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause,&quot; he includes the expression &quot;without a cause&quot; (ei0kh=) without even a hint of its spuriousness (Serm. on the Mt. i. 9, 25); but in his Retractations (i. 19. 4) he makes the correction, &quot;The Greek manuscripts do not contain sine causa.&quot; Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, the Vulgate and the Revised English Version, in agreement with the oldest mss., omit the clause. He refers to a conflict of the Greek and Latin text of Matt. v. 39 &quot;Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek&quot;, and follows the authority of the Greek in omitting the adjective &quot;right&quot; (Serm. on the Mt. i. 19, 58). At Matt. vi. 4 he casts out, on the authority of the Greek, the adverb palam &quot;openly&quot;, which was found in many Latin translations (as it is also found in the Textus Receptus, but not in the Vulgate, and the Sinaitic, B, D, and other mss.). Commenting on Matt. vii. 12, &quot;Wherefore all things whatsoever ye would that men,&quot; etc., he refers to the addition of &quot;good&quot; before &quot;things&quot; by the Latins, and insists upon its erasure on the basis of the Greek text (Serm. on the Mt. ii. 22, 74).&quot;

[u:4fc7e9c4df]Jerome[/u:4fc7e9c4df]

Thomas Aquinas in his chapter &quot;On Anger&quot; in the Summa Theologica quotes Jerome thus:

&quot;It would seem that it cannot be lawful to be angry. For Jerome in his exposition on Mt. 5:22, 'Whosoever is angry with his brother,' etc. says: 'Some codices add without cause. However, in the genuine codices the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether.'&quot;

[u:4fc7e9c4df]Erasmus[/u:4fc7e9c4df]

Erasmus is quoted in Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), p. 135, as follows:

&quot;You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices.&quot; [quote:4fc7e9c4df] Anyone who is interested in this subject should read the works of Dean John Burgon whose scholarship in this area is just awesome.[/quote:4fc7e9c4df] If you read anything at all on the subject, I'd recommend reading &quot;Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism&quot; by Daniel B. Wallace in [i:4fc7e9c4df]Grace Theological Journal[/i:4fc7e9c4df] 12 (1992) 21-51, which can be read online here:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/inspiration.htm

For further reading, see &quot;Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text&quot; here:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/89c3.htm

and &quot;The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?&quot; here:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/91b2.htm

Also, the concise &quot;What about the Majority Text?&quot; by Michael D. Marlowe is a good read on the subject. Here's an excerpt:

&quot;The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about &quot;Alexandrian&quot; deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.&quot;

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

Grace and peace, dC



[Edited on 7-1-2003 by doulosChristou]


----------



## grace2U (Jul 3, 2003)

Hi DoulosChristou!
That was really interesting, and I wasn't aware of it. I withdraw my comment concerning 'secular' principles of textual critcism, though' they were certainly secular when they were taught to me! However, I still cannot accept that 100 manuscripts in agreement should be passed over in favour of two or three that contradict.

One small point. Augustine's view on Matt 5:22 was mentioned. I do not think it can be correct to leave out the words 'without a cause' because Paul certainly permits justified anger if it doesn't lead to sin (Eph 4:26). If our Lord condemned all anger, then surely there would be a contradiction?
Every blessing,
Steve


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 3, 2003)

[quote:f3957fa3be][i:f3957fa3be]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:f3957fa3be]
Hi DoulosChristou!
That was really interesting, and I wasn't aware of it. I withdraw my comment concerning 'secular' principles of textual critcism, though' they were certainly secular when they were taught to me! [/quote:f3957fa3be] Thanks, Steve! [quote:f3957fa3be]One small point. Augustine's view on Matt 5:22 was mentioned. I do not think it can be correct to leave out the words 'without a cause' because Paul certainly permits justified anger if it doesn't lead to sin (Eph 4:26). If our Lord condemned all anger, then surely there would be a contradiction?[/quote:f3957fa3be]Augustine was in no way arguing that the Lord condemned all anger. He was merely pointing out the fact that scribes added the phrase &quot;without cause&quot; in order to clarify this very point. Jerome pointed this out as well. It was Aquinas who miscontrued from this that all anger was unlawful despite the clearer &quot;be angry and do not sin&quot; (Eph.4:26). The clearer passages are to be used to help explain the less clear rather than &quot;fixing&quot; the less clear by adding to God's word, which is what the scribes were sometimes prone to do. Brother, there is no more a contradiction between the accurate rendering of Mat.5:22 (as in the NASB or ESV) &amp; Eph.4:26 as there is a contradiction between 1Jo.1:8 &amp; 3:6.

Grace and peace, dC


----------



## grace2U (Jul 7, 2003)

DC,
You say it is a 'fact' that scribes added the phrase, 'without a cause' to Matt 5:22. With respect, brother, you presume too much. The great majority of the ancient texts include the phrase, so it is more than likely that an inattentive scribe missed it out. Regardless of Augustine's view (and, great man though' he was, he made a lot of errors), there is no doubt that the settled view came to be that the phrase should be left in. Add to that the 'fact' that the meaning is clearer if it is included and the case for the majority text becomes in my opinion a bit heavy.
Every blessing,
Steve


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 9, 2003)

Blade,

The KJV, EMTV, NASB MKJV and many others are available on e-sword. If you haven't downloaded it, or bought Bible software, get it. You can view versions parallel as well. It also has some great commentaries.

http://www.e-sword.net

He just came out with a new update as well.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 10, 2003)

I had it but my lap top is having issues so I will wait till I get my new computer.

blade


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jul 16, 2003)

*Comments on NIV*

Though I agree that we should not dumb down the church. Sinners are who Christ came to save and often humans as sinners neglect their intellect. We have a responsibility to teach them to read, understand and gain an interest in GOD's WORD. Often &quot;dumbed-down&quot; versions are the adequate way to do this. 
When it comes to addressing important issues I believe that translations such as NKJV and NASB should be used. I prefer the INTERLINEAR BIBLE which lays the Greek out in it's original text and then matches the English word to each Greek word.
Knight :wr41:

[Edited on 7-16-2003 by knight4christ8]


----------



## thoughtfuldave (Jul 17, 2003)

*Eugene peterson's "the message"?*


----------



## Sancta-fixation (Jul 22, 2003)

Eugene Peterson's &quot;The Message&quot; is alright when used in a proper manner. I do not believe it should be the Bible you read everyday, or even look at frequently. BUT on occasion, like when you are presenting a Bible Study, or preaching a message, sometimes he makes things come so alive, that it would be wrong not to quote him. With a qualification that it is a paraphrase (an Extreme Paraphrase) and should not be used as your everyday Bible.

My :wr50: Sancta


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 22, 2003)

*Found in the garbage!*

I'm just curious. No one has answered fredtgreco's argument about God's providential preservation of the Scriptures for His church. 
And, just to supplement his statement about finding those older Greek manuscripts in the &quot;garbage&quot;, just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate. Why was it so well preserved? Could it be because it was never used because of the errors it contained??? Would you expect to find an accurate older manuscript in good condition? My guess would be no because it would be used so much and have to be recopied frequently. Just thought I would throw a couple more thoughts into this debate.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2003)

Is there a bible with all the old languages used in translation like aramaic,grekk,hebrew, wasnt there also an older style hebrew used by moses? What was the writting language of the egyptians was that ever used by moses?

Also would translating the NT into hebrew change the menaing of the words in anyway?

Or the same with using greek for the OT?


Blade


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jul 24, 2003)

Bladestunner I have also grown up with this version of the NIV as standard. One thing that has really made me connected with the Bible's original text is the Interlinear Bible published by &quot;Sovereign Grace Publishers&quot;. This Bible has the original language laid out and matches the most fitting english word or phrase with the original text. It turns out to be wuite broken but gives you a little more understnading and insight into the Word. There is still the handicap of being in English (Some of the meaning is lost no matter what English version it is). I have found this to be the next best thing from having a seminary education in Hebrew or Greek(which I hope to pursue). Check it out! It will aid and encourage your search for Truth.

Knight :wr41:

[Edited on 7-24-2003 by knight4christ8]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 24, 2003)

thank you Knight

Blade


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 24, 2003)

[quote:9dd16e049b][i:9dd16e049b]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:9dd16e049b]
I'm just curious. No one has answered fredtgreco's argument about God's providential preservation of the Scriptures for His church. 
And, just to supplement his statement about finding those older Greek manuscripts in the &quot;garbage&quot;, just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate. Why was it so well preserved? Could it be because it was never used because of the errors it contained??? Would you expect to find an accurate older manuscript in good condition? My guess would be no because it would be used so much and have to be recopied frequently. Just thought I would throw a couple more thoughts into this debate. [/quote:9dd16e049b] I thought Wallace's article had answered this quite satisfactorily. My question also still applies, &quot;How long was God's word buried and forgotten by His people by the time it was found and brought to King Josiah&quot;? You are absolutely right when you state that &quot;just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate&quot;. The science of textual criticism cannot be caricatured to meaning &quot;older manuscripts are always more accurate than newer ones&quot;. There are many many principles applied and factors balanced in the process. To get a basic understanding of what textual criticism entails, your starting place should be [b:9dd16e049b]The Text of the New Testament[/b:9dd16e049b] by Bruce Metzger followed by Aland's [b:9dd16e049b]The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism[/b:9dd16e049b]. The arguments in favor of TR and/or the MT are very weak. For the most part, these positions are held by laymen rather than serious scholars -- Dean Burgon, E. F. Hills, and Gordon H. Clark excepted. To me, the only real debate surrounding the Greek text is whether the UBS4 or the NA27 textual apparatus is to be preferred. :biggrin: As for the preservation argument, no one has even begun to refute the article I posted &quot;Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism&quot; by Daniel B. Wallace in Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992) 21-51, which, again, can be read online here: 

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/inspiration.htm 

Grace and peace, dC


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 24, 2003)

Thanks for the references Doulos. I'll look them up.


----------



## one-track mind (Aug 6, 2003)

It might be helpful to mention that it isn't just the variants in the manuscripts that make a difference in translations, but also our mastery of the Greek language. For instance, it was long thought that Scripture was written in some sort of &quot;theological&quot; Greek, since it differed from classical Greek. But, relatively recent archaeological discoveries of ancient papers have shown us that the NT is actually written in Koine (common, or - dare I say - &quot;LCD&quot; Greek).

We're better Greek scholars now than we were years ago, which is one reason I tend to lean toward newer translations (NRSV, NASB-update) over older ones.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 9, 2003)

[quote:1ee8c137bb][i:1ee8c137bb]Originally posted by doulosChristou[/i:1ee8c137bb]
[quote:1ee8c137bb][i:1ee8c137bb]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:1ee8c137bb]
I'm just curious. No one has answered fredtgreco's argument about God's providential preservation of the Scriptures for His church. 
And, just to supplement his statement about finding those older Greek manuscripts in the &quot;garbage&quot;, just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate. Why was it so well preserved? Could it be because it was never used because of the errors it contained??? Would you expect to find an accurate older manuscript in good condition? My guess would be no because it would be used so much and have to be recopied frequently. Just thought I would throw a couple more thoughts into this debate. [/quote:1ee8c137bb] I thought Wallace's article had answered this quite satisfactorily. My question also still applies, &quot;How long was God's word buried and forgotten by His people by the time it was found and brought to King Josiah&quot;? You are absolutely right when you state that &quot;just because an older manuscript is found well preserved is no indication that it is more accurate&quot;. The science of textual criticism cannot be caricatured to meaning &quot;older manuscripts are always more accurate than newer ones&quot;. There are many many principles applied and factors balanced in the process. To get a basic understanding of what textual criticism entails, your starting place should be [b:1ee8c137bb]The Text of the New Testament[/b:1ee8c137bb] by Bruce Metzger followed by Aland's [b:1ee8c137bb]The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism[/b:1ee8c137bb]. The arguments in favor of TR and/or the MT are very weak. For the most part, these positions are held by laymen rather than serious scholars -- Dean Burgon, E. F. Hills, and Gordon H. Clark excepted. To me, the only real debate surrounding the Greek text is whether the UBS4 or the NA27 textual apparatus is to be preferred. :biggrin: As for the preservation argument, no one has even begun to refute the article I posted &quot;Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism&quot; by Daniel B. Wallace in Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992) 21-51, which, again, can be read online here: 

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/inspiration.htm 

Grace and peace, dC [/quote:1ee8c137bb]

Ok,

I've read the article by Daniel Wallace, and it is severely lacking. It may be that the critical text is the text, but if Wallace's article is the best example of why we should not be TR/MT advocates, then the battle is over and Zondervan better sell its stock in the NIV. Here are just a few of the papably presumptuous (and donwright silly) arguments Wallace uses:

[quote:1ee8c137bb]What do you count? First, they {MT advocates} only count Greek manuscripts. Yet, there are almost twice as many Latin NT manuscripts as there are Greek (over 10,000 to approximately 5,500). If the Latin manuscripts were to be counted, then modern translations would be vindicated rather than the King James, because the early Greek manuscripts which stand behind the vast bulk of Latin manuscripts and behind modern translations are quite similar.[/quote:1ee8c137bb]
Now come on. Would anyone who is interested in the doctrine of inspiration and the use of the original languages (as I know dC commendably is) use this argument? Gee, there are a bunch of translated texts that support my theory. Next Wallace will have us revising the OT based on a bunch of Latin texts. The Vulgate (as opponents of the MT argue re: 1 John 5:7) has no authority to determine the basis of the actual Greek text. You can't have it both ways, Wallace. Either the Latin is inspired or it isn't.

[quote:1ee8c137bb]since there is not one solid shred of evidence that the Byzantine text even existed in the first three centuries of the Christian era. Not only this, but as far as our extant witnesses reveal, the Byzantine text did not become the majority text until the ninth century. Furthermore, for the letters of Paul, there is no majority text manuscript before the ninth century. To embrace the MT/TR text for the corpus Paulinum, then, requires an 800-year leap of faith[/quote:1ee8c137bb]

So I guess we throw out the whole OT, since there is a [b:1ee8c137bb]2000+[/b:1ee8c137bb] &quot;leap of faith&quot; for Moses' writings. Further, this argument is easily turned on the head of the Critical Text advocate. Simply substitute the words &quot;1800 years&quot; for &quot;800 years&quot; and &quot;critical text&quot; for &quot;corpus Paulinum&quot;. Which is a bigger leap of faith: (1) the fact that there may have been (but we don't know) Pauline MT papyri from pre 9th century, or (2) the fact that [b:1ee8c137bb][u:1ee8c137bb]we know beyond a shadow of a doubt[/u:1ee8c137bb][/b:1ee8c137bb] that there were [b:1ee8c137bb]no[/b:1ee8c137bb] (yes, ZERO) Critical texts for 1800+ years.

[quote:1ee8c137bb]Any claim that God preserved the New Testament text intact, giving His church actual, not theoretical, possession of it, must mean one of three things-either 1) God preserved it in all the extant manuscripts so that none of them contain any textual corruptions, or 2) He preserved it in a group of manuscripts, none of which contain any corruptions, or 3) He preserved it in a solitary manuscript which alone contains no corruptions. [/quote:1ee8c137bb]

This is a classic fallacy of &quot;false distraction&quot;. The MT advocate need not claim that a group of manuscripts was preserved without any corruptions in order to prove his point. It is enough to prove that God would preserve his text for his church throughout the ages. The CT advocate must show that it does not matter, for example, that EVERYONE (not just in one area, since there were NO, ZERO, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH critical texts pre-20th century) was unaffected by having the wrong text. This is related to Wallace's silly argument about the Egyptians:
[quote:1ee8c137bb]Second, again, assuming that the majority text is the original, and that it has been readily available to Christians for 1900 years, then it must have been readily available to Christians in Egypt in the first four centuries.[/quote:1ee8c137bb]

in which it is assumed that in order for God to preserve a text, He [u:1ee8c137bb]must[/u:1ee8c137bb] preserve it in all places at all times. This is ludicrous, and not even worth arguing against. I guess I could argue that the CT is no good because the Malay peoples did not have it, or because there is some tribe in Polynesia that does not have it.

Wallace then precedes to make an exceedingly bad argument:
[quote:1ee8c137bb]Fourth, there is a tacit assumption on the part of Pickering that everything a biblical author writes is inspired
[/quote:1ee8c137bb]

So... we're to assume that the end of Mark was actually some kind of &quot;whoops&quot; by the Church in including uninspired material and saying it was the Bible? This kind of makes dC's (good) argument for comparing everything by the Scriptures a bit foolish, doesn't it? What if some 1st century scrolls are found that leave out Ephesians 2? Do we simply say &quot;the best and oldest manuscripts do not include this text, and therefore it is not authentic&quot; ? Where does that end?

[quote:1ee8c137bb]Finally, we question whether it is an epistemologically sound principle to allow one's presuppositions to dictate his text-critical methodology. It is our conviction that this is neither honest to a historical investigation nor fair to one's evangelical heritage. If our faith cannot stand up to the scrutiny of rigorous investigation, then our beliefs need to be adjusted.[/quote:1ee8c137bb]

Gee, I must be a neanderthal then. I have to subject science (critical science as well as biological science) to my presuppositions -- the Bible is inspired, God true, God is not the author of confusion, the gates of hell won't prevail against the Church, the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, you know, those silly things found in the Bible. But I guess that is no match for the weight of historical-critical scholarship.

dC, please write something on this subject -- from your posts I can already tell that you are a better thinker and writer than Wallace. His article would be a joke if it were not so un-funny.


----------



## TheologLC (Oct 1, 2003)

[quote:56e1930307][i:56e1930307]Originally posted by Angelo[/i:56e1930307]
Scholarship is necessary for determining which text is more accurate, but aside from technical debates, I recommend that you consider the following:

1. NASB update
2. ESV
3. NKJV



[/quote:56e1930307]

That is my preferred order as well. The NASB 95 Update is my favorite.


----------



## grace2U (Oct 1, 2003)

One reason that I don't like the ESV as much as the NKJV is that the don't put interpolations in italics. Consider the following:-
1Cor 14:29. 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh ('judge') [what is said]'. The words, 'what is said are not found in ANY manuscript. The 'judging' of the other prophets might be as to which prophets should speak, rather than as to what is spoken.
1John 2:2. 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for [the sins of] the whole world'. Again, the words, 'the sins of' are not found in any manuscript, Greek or Latin. As written, the text gives support to arminianism.

The KJV, NKJV and NASB, if they add words to the text, put them in italics.

Blessings, 
Steve

[Edited on 10-1-2003 by grace2U]


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 2, 2003)

[quote:300058cc7d][i:300058cc7d]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:300058cc7d]
One reason that I don't like the ESV as much as the NKJV is that the don't put interpolations in italics. Consider the following:-
1Cor 14:29. 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh ('judge') [what is said]'. The words, 'what is said are not found in ANY manuscript. The 'judging' of the other prophets might be as to which prophets should speak, rather than as to what is spoken.
1John 2:2. 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for [the sins of] the whole world'. Again, the words, 'the sins of' are not found in any manuscript, Greek or Latin. As written, the text gives support to arminianism.

The KJV, NKJV and NASB, if they add words to the text, put them in italics.

Blessings, 
Steve

[Edited on 10-1-2003 by grace2U] [/quote:300058cc7d]

While I agree in principle that interposed words are best indicated by italics, I don't want the impression to linger that this particular interpolation is unwarranted or espouses Arminianism.

The actual Greek text reads:
[quote:300058cc7d]
[size=18:300058cc7d]kai&lt; aujto&lt;v iJlasmo&lt;v ejstin peri&lt; tw~n aJmartiw~n hJmw~n oju peri&lt; tw~n hJmeterw~n de&lt; mo&gt;non ajlla&lt; kai&lt; peri&lt; oJlou tou~ ko&gt;smou[/size:300058cc7d]
[/quote:300058cc7d]

OR literally
[quote:300058cc7d]
And he the propitiation is for the sins of us, not for our [sins] only but also for [the sins] of the whole world[/quote:300058cc7d]

The grammatical construction of the final clause is actually dependent on the noun [i:300058cc7d]hamartia[/i:300058cc7d] (sins) in the genitive plural. If it is not supplied in the clause "for the whole world" {[i:300058cc7d] holou tou kosmou[/i:300058cc7d]} then it should not supplied in "for ours". The two constructions are identical grammatically. 

I do agree however, that the 1 Corinthians passage is given exegetical meaning, rather than translated by the NIV.


----------



## grace2U (Oct 2, 2003)

Hi Fred,
I hear what you're saying, but if you're going to interpolate, 'the sins of' into 1John 2:2, then in order to make the verse acceptable to Reformed theology, you really need to add, 'the elect of' as well.

If I might try a literal translation, it would read, 'He Himself is propitiation concerning our sins; not concerning them of us ('ton hemeteron') only, but also concerning the whole world (Gk: kosmos).
Now 'kosmos' can have many meanings, but here I suggest it means just that- the Cosmos.

When Adam fell, it was God's righteous judgment that sinful man should not live in a perfect world, and He cursed it (Gen 3:17; 5:29). God's word says, 'For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope' (Rom 8:20). But it goes on, 'because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God' (v21).

How will it be delivered? How will the curse that God placed on the earth be lifted? By the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, who, on the cross redeemed not only guilty sinners, but the whole creation ('kosmos'). In the New Heavens and New Earth, there shall be no more curse (Rev 22:3); the Lord Jesus Christ has taken it all away.

I would not want to force that interpretation of 1John 2:2 on everybody, but I think it is legitimate, and my original point was that it is impossible if one reads the ESV (or NIV) translation.

NKJV rules, OK!

Joshua,
Sometimes it is necessary to add words to a translation in order to make it read smoothly. My case is that where this is done, the added words should be put in italics, so that the reader knows about it and can make his own judgment. The KJV, NKJV and NASB do this; the others, including NIV and ESV, don't.

Every blessing,
Steve

[Edited on 10-2-2003 by grace2U]


----------



## grace2U (Oct 6, 2003)

Hey, Fred!
I'm interested to know whether you thought my last post was a legitimate exposition of 1John 2:2. It isn't original to me, but I'd appreciate your opinion before I use it in a sermon sometime.

Blessings,
Steve


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 6, 2003)

[quote:b9b4228fec][i:b9b4228fec]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:b9b4228fec]
Hey, Fred!
I'm interested to know whether you thought my last post was a legitimate exposition of 1John 2:2. It isn't original to me, but I'd appreciate your opinion before I use it in a sermon sometime.

Blessings,
Steve [/quote:b9b4228fec]

Steve,

I think that your interpretation is possible, although I would prefer to take 1 John 2:2 in the same sense that I take John 3:16. It is expressing the same thought here - that Christ died for all who would believe in him, with the understanding (by analogy of faith) that only those who are elect will believe, over and against those that would limit the Messiah to the Jews.

Matthew Poole describes it thus:

[quote:b9b4228fec]
And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world; nor is his undertaking herein limited to any select persons among believers, but he must be understood to be an Advocate for all, for whom he is effectually a Propitiation, i.e. for all that truly believe in him, (#Ro 3:25), all the world over.
[/quote:b9b4228fec]


And Matthew Henry:

[quote:b9b4228fec]
4. By the extent of his plea, the latitude of his propitiation. It is not confined to one nation; and not particularly to the ancient Israel of God: He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (not only for the sins of us Jews, us that are Abraham's seed according to the flesh), but also for those of the whole world (#1Jo 2:2); not only for the past, or us present believers, but for the sins of all who shall hereafter believe on him or come to God through him. The extent and intent of the Mediator's death reach to all tribes, nations, and countries. As he is the only, so he is the universal atonement and propitiation for all that are saved and brought home to God, and to his favour and forgiveness
[/quote:b9b4228fec]

And Gill:

[quote:b9b4228fec]
but also for [the sins] of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, &quot;not for us only, but also for the whole world&quot;; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles amle, &quot;the world&quot;; and Mlweh lk, &quot;the whole world&quot;; and Mlweh twmwa, &quot;the nations of the world&quot; {l}; see Gill on &quot;John 12:19&quot;; and the word &quot;world&quot; is so used in Scripture; see #Joh 3:16 4:42 Ro 11:12,15; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that hrpk Nhl Nya, &quot;there is no propitiation for them&quot; {m}: and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense[/quote:b9b4228fec]

The Geneva notes:
[quote:b9b4228fec]For men of all sorts, of all ages, and all places, so that this benefit being not to the Jews only, of whom he speaks as appears in #1Jo 2:7 but also to other nations[/quote:b9b4228fec]

And finally Calvin:

[quote:b9b4228fec]
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world
[/quote:b9b4228fec]

So I would make your point, but use it as &quot;coloring&quot; for the verse rather than THE interpretation.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 7, 2003)

... so many Bibles... so many versions... 

Praise the Lord for Bibleworks 5.0!!! 
I have it all, BABY! YAHOO!:biggrin:


----------



## grace2U (Oct 9, 2003)

Fred,
Thank you for your helpful comments.
Every blessing,
Steve


----------



## nicnap (Jul 23, 2004)

*Re: N.T. Texts*

[quote:136770b5be="grace2U"]Those theologians who favour the Critical Text (Nestle/Aland) are following secular principles of textual criticism. Before I was converted I did a Degree in Classical Languages and we were told that if there was a disagreement between texts, the older one was more likely to be accurate because it had probably been copied fewer times.
This is fine for most classical authors, where there are only three or four manuscripts in existence, but when you come to the NT, there are literally hundreds to choose from and the huge majority are in close agreement with each other. In addition, we have biblical quotations from the Church Fathers which tell us what sort of Bible they had in front of them.
The fact is that the Received Text (KJV &amp; NKJV) is much closer to the majority of manuscripts than the Critical Text which is largely based on just two (admittedly older) texts. I do not think it is right to throw out the witness of a thousand or more copyists who are in substantial agreement with each other for the sake of just a few on the other side. Therefore I prefer the NKJV to either the ESV or the NASB.
Anyone who is interested in this subject should read the works of Dean John Burgon whose scholarship in this area is just awesome.
Blessings,
Steve[/quote:136770b5be]



Steve,
I have recently switched to the NKJV from the ESV-due to some "obstinate" member who preferred the KJV- and have found myself liking this translation very much, again (I switched to the ESV from the NKJV, and am now "back"). Do you have any Burgon links? They would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 23, 2004)

I grew up with the RSV and do not recommend it.

My three choices are the:
1. ASV It uses the critical text. Its English is somewhat akward but literal
2. KJV This is the liturgical standard, and it is the easiest to memorize.
3. Geneva For its helpful notes more then its excellent text.


----------



## grace2U (Jul 23, 2004)

Hi Nicnap,
I'm not aware of Burgon's writings being available on line.
His books are available from:-
The Dean Burgon Society,
Box 354,
Collingswood, NJ 08108

However, I'm unable to endorse the Dean Burgon Society. In my humble opinion, Burgon himself would not have joined. It is a KJV-only society run by D.A.Waite. However, that's where you get Burgon's books from.

A useful place to get information on the various texts is the Trinitarian Bible Society. Go to www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org or e-mail [email protected] They have a branch in the USA.

Burgon's best books are
[i:01c79c9ab7]The Revision Revised
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark[/i:01c79c9ab7] and
[i:01c79c9ab7]The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels[/i:01c79c9ab7]

I hope this helps.

Every blessing,
Steve


----------



## larryjf (Jan 1, 2005)

For me the top 3 versions would be
NKJV, NASB, ESV

I find that the NKJV has the most accurate translation of nouns, and is more accurate in the OT.
The NASB is more accurate in its handling of some verbs and their tense.

The cool thing about the NKJV is the manuscript footnotes. They don't use words like "the best manuscripts", they simply tell you which manuscripts they are referring to. Using the NKJV with its footnotes you could read from any of the main manuscript families (majority, TR, NU).


----------



## Authorised (Jan 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by grace2U_
> 
> 
> However, I'm unable to endorse the Dean Burgon Society. In my humble opinion, Burgon himself would not have joined. It is a KJV-only society...



Total falsehood. Do you even know what you're saying? 


There are basically two brands of "KJV-onlyism"

1. KJV was in some form inspired by God in 1611.

2. KJV is such a far superior translation that those who speak English ought to use it.

The KJV-onlyism which is most commonly thought of is #1. Dean Burgon Society members utterly repudiate and anathemitize that position, which IS held by Ruckman, Riplinger, and Marrs, who all three are worthy of the label King James only. 

If you took the time to research their articles and lectures, you would have found that the whole point of using the KJV is NOT because of "inspired" English, but because of the Greek text.




[Edited on 1-1-2005 by Authorised]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 2, 2005)

Can anyone summarize the differences or areas of agreement between Theodore Letis and the Dean Burgon Society?


----------

