Top 3 English Translations

Status
Not open for further replies.
[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, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; 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, "the world"; and Mlweh lk, "the whole world"; and Mlweh twmwa, "the nations of the world" {l}; see Gill on "John 12:19"; and the word "world" 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, "there is no propitiation for them" {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 "coloring" for the verse rather than THE interpretation.
 
... so many Bibles... so many versions...

Praise the Lord for Bibleworks 5.0!!!
I have it all, BABY! YAHOO!:biggrin:
 
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 & 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. :handshake:
 
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.
 
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
 
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).
 
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]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top