Philippians 1:16-17 Nestle Aland (sp) Textus Recepticus (sp)

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by puros_bran, Sep 4, 2008.

  1. puros_bran

    puros_bran
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I mentioned in my introduction I am KJP but trying to pick up the NASB. After reading this Sundays Sunday School Passage again I did the old flip it open and read what's there routine, I landed at Phillipians 1 and started to read. Vs 16&17 didn't sound right to my memory so I grabbed the KJV and read it.. Sure enough, its backwards. So I threw my NASB out the window.. Hold it just kidding.... So I grabbed my blackberry and went to biblegateway.com and looked at other versions. Some agreed with KJV but Most agreed with NASB.. So I went to an online Interlinear to see what it had to say.. Its a KJV/TR interlinear and they are in agreement. But I remember reading about Nestle something or ruther and saw an option to use their Greek Manuscript, its in agreement with the NASB,NIV,ESV etc etc..

    Now I suppose this could be used as fuel for the 'Version Wars' but it doesn't change the meaning of the passage one wit in this instance. My question is: Is it common for major differences in the NA and TR, or is this type of thing the exception instead of the rule?
     
  2. puros_bran

    puros_bran
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Textus Receptus....lol, I was close.

    After a little bit of research all I can say is WOW!

    My original question is a bigger can of worms than I thought. Sorry.
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    You said the difference in this instance did not "change the meaning of the passage one wit" but you then imply in your question that "this type of thing" is a "major" difference. Then yes, it is common for there to be "major" variants in the Greek texts that make no material difference in God's message, or are not even realized in the rendering of the English, particularly when the translation method of the version is more 'dynamic' (less literal).
     
  4. puros_bran

    puros_bran
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank You.

    I'm hoping this proves true.
     
  5. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    NA and TR disagree each other 8,000 times.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless you counted them yourself, you should give a reference.
    Thank you.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well, you didn't show your research back in 2005 either. Here I'll help you. It only took me 20 minutes to find the numbers. I'll be rewarded in Heaven for the time spent finding it for you.

    You can give this reference in the future:

    http://www.supakoo.com/rick/ricoblog/2007/04/16/IsNestleAlandReallyThatGreat.aspx

    8,000 verses different in about 138,020 Words of the NA27 (not clear compared with what, maybe the TR or TR-like guesses?)

    8,000/138,020 = 5.7% of the words different

    What way did the Translators of the KJV use to resolve the seeming 'differences' among thier sources?

    What should we use today to resolve the seeming 'differences' among our available sources?
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Ka-ching!"

    Funny! Did I just hear a noise?

    Ed
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Ka-ching!"

    Strange! I think I just heard it again.

    And It seemed louder this time. ;)

    Ed
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't taken the time to check any of this out, and don't have the time now, but nevertheless let me say,
    "Welcome to the Baptist Board." :wavey:

    Ed
     
  11. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't claim to be an expert in original-language manuscripts (I do well to know my native English :laugh: ), so I can't say whether the 8000 figure is right or wrong. But, no matter how many differences there may be in manuscript groups, the miraculous thing is that, through it all, God has accurately and inerrantly preserved His word (His message to us). His word will stand forever.

    God's word is given us to light our way.

    And His word is pure.

    Thank You, Lord, for preserving Your pure word for us. We're not deserving, but Your word and Your grace have brought us through many things. Please continue to bless us with Your grace and Your preserved word. Thank You that Your word is just as fresh and vibrant today as it was when it was first written by those You inspired. Thank You, thank You, thank You!
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ed, I totally agree with you.

    It is precisely because the referrence was not given that it seems that you may have cited an incorrect guess as the source. I don't believe that this where Askjo got his information. The context here is the NA, W&H, and USB (but no TR); from the webpage you cited --
    One more thing that confuses me is that these first chapters are spent building up to the UBS/NA (but particularly the NA) as being the glory of glories of all Greek editions. They heap some elitist scorn on W&H for their edition, primarily because W&H didn't examine actual manuscripts but relied on critical editions to inform their work (A&A 18). The "non-Western interpolations" are mentioned in derision at least three times, if I recall correctly. Yet the all-glorious Nestle text (the 25th edition), by the counts in this very book, differs from W&H in only 558 places outside of orthorgraphical differences. (NB: just about 8000 verses in the NT, NA27 has 138,020 words. You do the math and figure the percentages). I'm unsure of the differences between NA25 and NA27.​
    But I did find some other likely referrences on the Internet --
    Comment #60. Both these "giants" and Hutcheson are in error. The "eclectic Greek Text" of Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, or United Bible Societies differ from the true Words underlying our King James Bible in over 8,000 places and have 356 doctrinal passages which are in error. What sort of "preservation" is that? (The Dean Burgeon Society website)

    In view of the preceding ten grossly erroneous statements on the subject of New Testament Greek Manuscript Differences, I appeal to you to help our Bible For Today ministry to re-print Dr. Jack Moorman's book entitled: "8,000 Differences Between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland NT Greek Texts." It is 536 pages in all. If these Fundamentalist brethren are wrong on this very important question, how many other major points can they be wrong in this battle for our Bible? With this book available as a hardback book, it could be put into the hands of hundreds of those who now have fallen in line with those favoring the Greek Critical Text. Within these 8,000 differences in the Critical Text, there are also at least 356 doctrinal passages which are in ERROR. (the BibleForToday website)

    Dr. Waite further states: "There are over 8,000 documented differences between the Received Greek Text and the Revised Critical Greek Text. Included in these 8,000 differences are at least 356 doctrinal passages where the Revised Greek Text is in doctrinal error. I have listed 158 of the more important of these 356 doctrinal passages in Chapter V of my book, DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE. (the OldPathsPublications website)​
    Perhaps this isn't exactly where Askjo got his information either; perhaps he doesn't even remember. (BTW - Who counted Moorman or Waite? Both? Neither?)
     
    #12 franklinmonroe, Sep 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2008
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    research seems like a good tight circle (the logic also is circular, as well as the group that 'makes' the data).

    (1)
    This page :
    http://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/BFT_3287.pdf
    says:

    Dr. Jack Moorman wrote a 544 page book with the title: Differences between the NIV and Modern Versions and the Words, Underlying the King James Bible.

    // ... in the New Testament, Dr. Jack Moorman has specified over 8,000 differences between the Greek Text of Nestle/Aland and the Greek Text underlying the King James Bible ... //

    (2)
    This page:
    http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_he.html
    says see this source for more information:

    //356 Doctrinal Errors in the N.I.V. and other Modern Versions by Dr. Jack Moorman//

    As well, 15 other sources, talking about NIV errors, are listed

    (3)
    The Dean Burgon Society is wanting to raise money by selling these things:

    // #2956 356 Doctrinal Errors in the NIV & Others $10.00
    // #3084 8,000 Differences Between TR & CT $20.00 //

    selling them at:
    http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/News/no_80.htm

    (4)
    This place is also selling trying to raise money:
    // The Bible For Today Update
    from
    Yvonne Sanborn Waite
    December 2006 //

    // #3084 8,000 Differences Between TR & CT (by Dr. Moorman) $20.00 //

    So I guess we need to take a peek at that book by Dr. Moorman???

    And we learn that a certain movement which shall remain nameless don't do much about academic research.
     
  14. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    It's no secret that there are different variants accepted into the many Greek texts. The number 8,000 sounds impressive until the rest of the information is revealed: the admission that there is some number much fewer than 400 differences (5% of the total) that allegedly affect doctrine. Since the OP asked about "major" differences, this is the information that should have been offered (not an useless inflated figure).
     
    #14 franklinmonroe, Sep 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2008
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Brother FranklinMonroe -- Preach it! :thumbs:
     

Share This Page

Loading...