Featured KJV vs NKJV

Sure, agreement among 99.99% of Greek manuscripts is not enough to be compelling. Ditto for agreement in all early translations in any language of the Bible. Doesn't mean a thing. But, wait, the CT compilers did feel compelled to make Nymphos a woman.

 

Smyth, the NET footnote seems to run counter to your assertions. As far as early translations, Wycliffe's translation (circa 1395) has her. If fact the difficulty was present, as the "him" version appears also but in brackets.

 

Both the Wycliffe bible and Wycliffe's source, the Latin Vulgate, treat Nymphas as a male. There is a later "Wycliffe" version, not produced by Wycliffe, that refers to Nymphas a her. Of course, KJV, Darby, Young, and Douay-Rheims all treat Nymphas as a male. The fake Wycliffe version is an oddity.

I'll go with the overwhelming ancient testimony over the CT and NET Bible's wave of a hand saying Nymphas is a her because it's "harder reading".

 

Fine, Smyth, you go with the Byz and I will go with the CT.

Here is how an "on line" version of Wycliffe"s bible reads,
15 Grete ye wel the britheren that ben at Loadice, and the womman Nynfam, and the chirche that is in hir hous.

OTOH, the Tyndale Bible has "his."

 

Wycliffe didn't write that, but some later reviser did. Wycliffe wrote: 15 Greet ye well the brethren that be at Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in his house.

It's not a toss up. The fake Wycliffe is the only pre-20th century English translation I know that calls Nymphas a woman. That's hardly a compelling case. Of course, it's really what the Greek manuscripts say that's important, and likewise, not even 1 in 1000 say Nymphas is a woman, which is very compelling that Nymphas is a male.

I know why Wycliffe believed Nymphas was a man, because his source, the Vulgate, said so. Do you have any idea why the fake Wycliffe says Nymphas is a woman (and even belabors the point by inserting words and calling her a woman, in addition to using the female pronoun)?

Even if it were a toss up, a male should be chosen by default.

 

On what basis do you claim the online version differs from your source? Is there a link to your version on line, or to an on line article supporting your view? In my search on line, the two versions both had a women. To my mind, several early manuscripts trumps many differing late ones.

 

Check the introduction of your online Bible, it'll tell you it's not Wycliffe's version, even though it's titled Wycliffe Bible. Or, look for another source.

 

Wyclif's Bible was translated from the Vulgate. He had no access to Greek manuscripts and almost certainly would not have known Greek.

 

When someone fails to answer my questions concerning their assertions, it is time to say goodbye.
An "Early Version" was published circa 1382, and a revision was published circa 1395. It is the "Later Version" that reads "her." Thus not all versions read "him."

 

You brought up the Wycliffe version, no me. I didn't ask you to prove anything about your claim. I could have asked you to show me that Wycliffe created the 1395 version that you quoted. It should be enough for you that I pointed you to truth and you can verify it yourself, that Wycliffe did not produce the 1395 version. This isn't controversial or a conspiracy theory, but it's universally accepted.

And, I can point you to some more truth, I don't believe what you quoted is found in the 1395 version, but is a yet later change. But, this truth I'm not putting on the table for discussion.

 

Still no link, no reference, goodbye.

 

Who makes a poll about prefred Bible versions that includes the NAB? Hope that's a typo. The NAB hasn't been published in decades and it was obscure even at its peak. Was the NASB meant? The NASB is a good translation, but it's not popular or relevant enough to be on a short list of preferred translations. And, why was the SBC's HCSB left off a Bible list in a Baptist forum?

 

First John Wycliffe probably contributed to several renditions of the 1382 version, but others such as Nicholas of Hereford, contributed as well. The 1395 version is a revision of the early (1382) version finished years after John Wycliffe had died. This version is thought to be primarily by his secretary John Purvey.

The assertion that the 1395 version did not say "her house" is without support and should be dismissed unless validated.

 

... some years years after Wycliffe died (d. 1384), so maybe now you believe Wycliffe didn't produce the 1395 version (and, no source you had claimed Wycliffe wrote this version). Better late than never?

If it took you this long to accept that Wycliffe didn't write "her house", I have no hope that you'd accept the evidence that the 1395 version also didn't say "her house".[/QUOTE]

 

Folks, Mr Smyth provided absolutely no support for his claim. Next he suggests I thought John Wycliffe produced the 1395 revision. No quote will be forth coming except I referred to the 1395 version as "Wycliffe's Bible" which is how the LV is referenced. OTOH, he suggested none of the early translations said "her." Here is the quote

I showed him his error, but he never said "oops."

I have no interest in petty quibbling when the facts are here for all to read.

 

It just goes to show the faulty rules and techniques used to develop the CT. I have posted many times about how the scholars who have laid down the foundations and developed the CT have been apostates and infidels. David Cloud has an excellent article on wayoflife.org: http://www.wayoflife.org/database/wellsofinfidelity.html

 

Van, the record shows that you said, "Wycliffe's translation (circa 1395) has her." That in fact is not Wycliffe's translation, as Wycliffe had been dead long before 1395. I called it a fake Wycliffe version. You then posted "In my search on line, the two versions both had a women." That in fact is false, the translation produced by Wycliffe has a man. I don't believe the 1395 version has a woman, either. But, that is my judgement rather than established fact (I do have evidence, but you have been unreceptive to the evidence I've already offered, especially in regard to the overhwelming majority of Greek manuscripts against "her", but you still said, "I did not see a compelling argument for either, The gender is uncertain [yet, you still go with 'her'].")

I said, "Ditto for agreement in all early translations in any language of the Bible.[they have 'her']". I didn't say English translations. A translation 1300 years after the fact is not "early". I had in mind the translations made in the first few centuries after Christ, like the early Latin versions, Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, Nubian, and other translations before English existed. I also had in mind those translations from Greek (early translation of the Greek, so that we know what the earliest Greek manuscripts said, to know him or her). The Wycliffe Bible and the fake Wycliffe Bible aren't based on Greek sources.

 

1) Again the claim that the 1395 version was not a revision of earlier translations directed by John Wycliffe. This assertion is false and misleading.

2) LOL, Mr. Smyth, the two versions refers to those I found on line, not the EV and LV. So yet another false and misleading statement.

3) The 1395 version is early and and on line renditions of it have her. No amount of false and misleading statements will alter these facts.

4) I have no idea what you had in mind, but the versions you cited included "KJV, Darby, Young, and Douay-Rheims all treat Nymphas as a male." Wycliffe's Bible circa1395 is earlier than all those.

 

Wycliffe didn't write "her". In his version, he wrote "his". Nymphas is a man. The "Later Version" might be based on Wycliffe's work, but "her" is not Wycliffe's version. It's that simple.

If you say two versions, it's going to be taken as the EV and LV, not two websites with the same version.

None of those are based on actual manuscripts from 1395.

I only cited those versions in response to you bringing up the fake Wycliffe version. I did not refer to those versions in the context of "early translations." They're early English translations, but pretty much useless for revealing what the original NT manuscripts might have said, because they come more than 1300 years after the fact. As far as general translations go, Wycliffe is late.

 

More unsubstantiated assertions, more absurdity.

Folks, the two versions of the 1395 Wycliffe Bible were in differing English, one in more modern English with brackets showing (I believe) an alternate rendering, and the other in something akin to middle English.
The bracketed rendering did indeed say him. But the main text in both said her.

You can google it and see who is blowing smoke.