1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Footnotes in Translations: Good or Bad?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by jbh28, Sep 20, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    But the passages ARE in other translations.

    And honestly, I don't think I've ever in my 38 years of being a believer, experienced a time when someone discovered that there was a difference between one version and another and thus doubted the Word of God.
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'll just start a new thread.
     
    #62 Mexdeaf, Sep 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2010
  3. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the older english translations the verses begin something like this:
    7 For there are three that bear record in heaven...
    8 And there are three that bear witness in earth...

    The NIV has it this way:
    7 For there are three that testify...
    8 The Spirit...

    Notice something missing from the NIV? One of the "there are 3 that bear record/testify" statements.

    I've shown this multiple times already. I will again now.

    KJ verse 8 = NIV verses 7 and 8.

    Begninning of KJ verse 8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth" = NIV verse 7 "For there are three that testify". Rest of KJ verse 8 "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" = all of NIV verse 8 "the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

    It's pretty simple. They cut out all of verse 7 and split up verse 8.
     
  4. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Well, I guess you can't read.
     
  5. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have studied up on it. You can have whatever manuscript evidence you want but what you do not have is a single original copy of scripture. Without it you cannot know, by a scientific process, what was in the originals. That is why there is such a difference of opinion on 1 John 5:7, for instance. Some people argue for it, some against it, and by textual criticism no solution is found. Why? Because nobody has any clue whether John wrote that in his original copy using textual criticism. Scientific methods fail without an eyewitness or a copy of the original.

    Some people trust the older copies because they are older. Some people trust the so called majority text because it is the so called majority. Which side is right? That's a good question isn't it? The fact is, neither side can prove they are right. The reason is neither side has ever seen an original. You hear all the time how this was not likely original, or that was most likely not original, or this was and should be included. I laugh at such nonsense. It's no better than the scientist who runs around carbon dating bones to determine when this creature lived and how old the deposit is.

    The way I see it, you have one of two choices. One can either trust that God preserved the scriptures or one can set out by scientific method to determine what are the scriptures. Either way, you and I have never seen a single original copy, and without that textual criticism fails.
     
  6. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I missed one thing you wrote, I'll give you that. But, you missed what I wrote. I didn't say took out verse 8, I said they took and split up verse 8.

    They took out verse 7 and split up verse 8 to make up verses 7 and 8 as they appear in the NIV.
     
  7. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Then there's the third option that I discussed above. Take off the blinders.
     
  8. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or perhaps you could actually deal with the topic at hand.
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Question my honesty if you must. That does not change the fact that I agree with those Bible scholars who gave us the venerable King James translation. They said that marginal readings helped us to come to a fuller understanding of the sense of scriptures.

    Alternate reading and marginal notes have never caused me to doubt God's word in the slightest.

    Why would those great King James scholars have done anything to cause us to doubt the word they so faithfully translated?
     
    #69 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2010
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Moderator insertion:

    Last warning. Stay on topic. If you want to discuss the Johannian Comma go to that thread. If you want to discuss preservation do so on another thread. If you want to discuss texts, do do elsewhere. I will delete any posts from either side that are not on the topic of footnotes.
     
    #70 NaasPreacher (C4K), Sep 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2010
  11. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    2
    The two instances are in different books, one in Matthew and one in Luke. But anyone who has more-than-superficially looked into the textual criticism of the NT would know that the situation presented by textual masters such as Mill, Wettstein, Griesbach, Meyer, etc., is quite normal within the complex textual tradition of the NT. Your complaint, if valid, would also make Bruce Metzger look "really quite stupid" for suggesting that the vast majority of Byzantine scribes/editors altered "father" to "Joseph" in Luke 2:33 and "parents" to "Joseph and his mother" in 2:43 "to safeguard the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus" but not in 2:27 and 2:41. And these examples are not divided between books but in the same book and even within the space of 15 verses! While I do not deny that doctrinal modifications could have played a role with a minority of manuscripts in these examples from Luke, it is more likely that a scribal desire to shorten the text and/or to harmonize to the expression describing Jesus' relationship to his parents in 2:27 affected a handful of often-related Greek mss in 2:33 (ℵ B D L W etc.) and 2:43 (ℵ B D L W Θ etc.).

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
    #71 jonathan.borland, Sep 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2010
  12. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Footnotes are there to help the reader understand the info about textual/translational questions on the passage. The KJV did this. The translators of the KJV had to make decisions on which passages they thought were original. It amazes me when KJV only advocates talk about these things as "doubting" the Bible when their very own translation does the very same thing. They mock textual criticism, but that is exactly what the KJV translators and those with the Greek text before them did. Now, we can disagree over how to decide (older vs majority) but to pretend your translation doesn't do this when it does is wrong.
     
    #72 jbh28, Sep 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2010
  13. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2

    Yes, and that is what I have said, footnotes cause doubt and confusion. I have also owned a Scofield KJB in the past and did not care for the footnotes, starting with Gen 1:1-2 where Scofield argues there could possibly be a gap if I remember correctly (it has been many years since I've read a Scofield).

    I like reference Bibles, but even there you have to remember the author is pointing you toward certain verses and may exclude others.

    It is a ridiculous argument to say that footnotes that say things like "better manuscripts omit this verse" do not cause doubt. They have to. Unless you are some great scholar you do not know which texts included this verse and which did not, you do not know the history... So therefore you cannot be sure if the verse belongs there or not. This is nothing but doubt.

    For me, I start with the presupposition that God promised to preserve his pure word. I simply have to identify that pure and preserved word of God, but once I do I can fully trust every single word. I don't care if scholars disagree on some verses, I do not care what men think, I am trusting what God has promised.

    You can read these footnotes till the end of time and they will never tell you what the correct text is. And if you study the history of these questionable verses it will not give you an answer, because you will find many scholars who support a verse, but you will find many who do not support it. So you will always be left with doubt approaching scripture this way.

    In the end it always comes down to whether you trust that God preserved his pure word as he promised or not. And ten thousand arguments will not change this.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80

    And yet I tell you that no footnote has EVER caused me to doubt - NEVER. Not even the footnotes the King James translation team inserted. I respect those men highly for their great work, if anyone's footnotes could have caused me to doubt it would be their's.

    So where does that leave us? You say it is impossible to have footnotes and not doubt. I say footnotes have never caused me to doubt. Anybody else out there able to say that footnotes have never caused you to doubt?

    I agree with those brilliant KJ translators - marginal notes are essential for a full understanding of the sense of scriptures.
     
  15. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2

    OK, I will ask you the same question I asked Ann, do the last twelve verses of Mark 16 belong there or not?
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Not replying to an attempt to drag this off topic. Start a thread if you want.
     
  17. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    How very convenient. Since those verse he referenced have to do with footnotes, it is very much on topic.
     
  18. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So according to Annsni, the NIV, ESV, etc., translators think the ending of Mark is more than likely authentic.
     
  19. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    It could be or it could be not. That would be one heck of a footnote if they put it at the bottom!! I think the separation from the text itself shows that it's more like a big footnote. :)
     
  20. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As you quoted your ESV Study Bible:

    They kept it in the text rather than a footnote because of "its long history of acceptance by many in the church".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...