Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Baptist4life, Sep 2, 2009.
Just something I found interesting. Don't start bashing me please.
fact is not going someplace and not going someplace yetare not always contradictory.
so get over it.
as the NIV's footnote says, "John 7:8 Some early manuscripts do not have yet."
btw, what does the KJB1611's footnote say. or did u check?
Ah, yes, the old "footnotes are as inspired as the translation."
he makes a very valid point you'd like to be "gotten over".:laugh:
He did not go the Feast with this brothers then. Clearly, that is what He meant when He said he was not going. He went later, and not publicly.
The question is, does that word appear in the original source texts?
The word "oupo" appears in the TR, but in earlier texts which predate teh TR by hundreds of years, the word is absent.
If all translations that use the TR and similar texts as their primary source, the word appears. In all translations that use earlier texts as their primary source, the word does not appear, but there is usually a footnote that denotes that the word appears in later texts.
This is not a "KJV" issue. It's an issue of whether one gives earlier or later source texts priority during the translation process.
Is it too hard to imagine a scribe, thinking as you, giving the text a little nudge in the right direction (even though "yet" wasn't really in the document he was copying)? That's not adding to the words of God, since that is what Jesus meant afterall.
You invite controversy.
You’re being provocative!
Don't put on boxing gloves and then tell others to lay off.
How should we handle differences: Study it out!
and don’t start with prejudicial pre-judgments.
Step 1:Look at the the Greek Text(s):
ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται.
UBS Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition 1993
Ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην ἐγὼ οὔπω ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται.
The New Testament in the Original Greek : Byzantine Textform 2005,
Step 2: Examine the Data:
LaParola provides important information about the textual variants in the early manuscripts.
The variants according to texttype:
οὐκ] Alexandrian: *א 1241 copbo Cyril NR CEI
Cæs: 1071 arm geo
Western: D ita itaur itb itc itd ite itff2 vg syrs syrc Augustine Ambrosiaster
Byzantine: K Π 1079 1242 1546 l672 l673 l813 l950 l1223 eth slav Chrysostom Epiphanius Porphyryaccording to Jerome ?: Diatessaron
οὔπω] Alexandrian: p66 p75 B L T Δ Ψ 070 33 157 1006 1243 1342 copsa coppbo copach2 WH Riv TILC Nv NM
Alexandrian / Byzantine: X 892
Cæs: f1 f13 205 1424
Cæs/ Byzantine: 700
Western: W 1292 1505 1646 itf itq vgmss
Byzantine: E F G H N Θ 0105 0141 0250 28 180 597 1010 1195 1216 1230 1253 1344 1354 2148 Byz Lect syrp syrpal syrh syrh(gr) goth Basil Nonnus ς ND Dio ?: 0180
Step 3: Professional Assessments:
"A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants" gives the result of the variant in various English translations
TEXT: "I am not going up to this feast"
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIVn NEB TEV
TEXT: "I am not yet going up to this feast"
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIV NEBn TEVn
COMMENTS: Looking past verse 9 ("he remained in Galilee") to verse 10 ("he also went up"), several copyists apparently changed "not" to "not yet" to remove what they thought would have been a lie told by Jesus. If "not yet" was original, there would have been no reason for it to have been changed to "not" in so many manuscripts.
Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (4th Rev. Ed.) (p 185),
Phillip Comfort has another more recent volume of similar nature.
Step 4: Questions: Do you really think either text implies that Jesus lies?
My assessment: This is a minor Greek variant of little consequence.
If you guys would take the time to notice before attacking me, I DID NOT WRITE THAT. It was in "quotes" from an e-mail someone sent to me. I simply posted it to get your thoughts. I didn't comment one way or the other on it.
No one here is attacking you that I can see.
They're just addressing the complete untruth of what you posted.
Doesn't change the fact that the info of the OP is in error. This is not a "KJV" issue. It's an issue of whether one gives earlier or later source texts priority during the translation process.
The word "oupo" appears in the TR, but in earlier texts which predate the TR by hundreds of years, the word is absent.
In translations that use the TR and similar texts as their primary source (including, but not limited to, the KJV), the word appears. In all translations that use earlier texts as their primary source, the word does not appear, but there is usually a footnote that denotes that the word appears in later texts.
Maybe I took someone wrong then. I simply posted this, as I said, to get everyone's opinion on it. It seemed that people were assuming it was something I wrote, and an opinion I shared. You call it "untruth", but that is your opinion. Some may think it's "truth". That would be their opinion.
I call it confusing. That's all.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of objective truth. The OP states that some "versions have Jesus telling a lie". That's false. The source texts don't have the word in question. Only later source texts have the word. So unless the OP is claiming that the source texts are lying, then the OP is lying. Further, if the OP were toclaim that the cource texts were lying, that would be asserting an opinion, and not objective truth.
.......and that's all just your opinion! :thumbs:
I don't know, but if you told me that you were NOT going somewhere that I asked you to go, and then later I saw you there, I would believe that you lied to me.
I agree that the way those passages are worded can cause confusion without deeper study.
The person who sent me the e-mail was trying to show that different versions of the Bible can cause confusion. I'm not saying that I agree with that statement, but in this case, to the casual reader, I can see where my friend drew the conclusion that he did.
Honestly, I see no confusion at all. I guess it's maybe those guys who only read the KJV who get confused?
I didn't see anything "interesting" in the OP's quote. It sounded biased and prejudicial to me.
I apologize if I offended you with my remark, it did come out a bit strong.
"When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth."
George Bernard Shaw
Don't be satisfied with simple solutions.
The simple solution is pick the text you are most comfortable with and declare that it's the correct one.
What ever view you hold, how would it change your perception of Jesus it the other text was correct?
The information regarding the presence or absence of words in their source texts is not a matter of subjective opinion, it's a matter of objective fact. Youre friend's claims are contrary to objective fact.
Yet it only seemed to be an issue of confusion to the person who sent you the email. Plus, the way it's worded, the email laid blame on all versions except the KJV. That's an obvious bias on your friend's part.
Interesting the writer of this email did not include the NKJV. I wonder why? (Well, I know why, but find it interesting that he used only versions that support his view0
Anyhow...the inclusion/exclusion of 'yet' does not affect the sentence at all.
"I'm not going."
I'm not going YET."
How can you say those two sentences mean the same thing?
With the rest of the verse.
I am not confused.
"Are you going to the gym?'
"No, I am not off work till 6.00" is the same as "No, I am not going yet."