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!

NASB more accurate than KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by jstrickland1989, Dec 22, 2005.

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

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you have the numbers for each group?
    They are not the most versions. Much more majority support KJV, in addition to many Latins.
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,461
    Likes Received:
    1,225
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If we are merely counting numbers of texts, the NIV version is the "Majority text" :D

    Rob
     
  3. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For Ephesian, my understanding is:

    p46, sinaiticus, A,B,C

    For Timothy

    Aleph, A,C

    There is no Vatican text for Timothy.

    Even if we count what you mentioned, the number of texts supporting those MV's are handful while the texts supporting KJV are hundreds.

    Those later texts are not the copy of those older ones, but just descendants of the older copies of autographs, discovered in the wide area.
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,461
    Likes Received:
    1,225
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NAS reading ("he", in 1 Timothy) is supported by both internal contextual formation (grammar) and external witnesses.

    I'm not proficient in Greek so I can't argue the grammar with any degree of authority.

    Regarding 1 Timothy 3:16, Metzger writes:

    "...no unical (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεος; all ancient versions presuppose oς or o; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεος.

    The reading θεος arose either (a) accidently, through the misreading... [of similar Greek prepositions] or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision." (Metzger, p. 574).

    Rob
     
  5. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    First question, what exactly is the difference between "He who" and "God" in Timothy? Isnt a pronoun simply a substitute for something else, and when reading this, is there any other identity that could be refered to that was "manifest in the flesh"?

    If you object to the pronoun, I can quote you about 20 or so places where the MVs have the word "Jesus" "God" or "Christ" and the KJV has the pronoun. I honestly cant see any honest person making a big deal out of that. One is 6, the other is half dozen. Only a fool would argue about that.

    Now, if you can explain to me what difference it makes, and how THIS VERSE it is important to have the reading "God" even though it is OBVIOUS, and in other places when the KJV uses a pronoun it is NOT important, then I will move on to your other verse.

    If you would please, use actual evidence.
     
  6. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    sorry, double post for some reason
     
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, it isn't. Your choices are between "God manifested in flesh" and "He manifested in flesh."

    Additionally, nobody has ever suggested the reading should be "Theos." What the vast majority of the manuscript evidence shows is that the original reading was "THS" (which looks exactly like OS except for the tiny lines) that is, theta sigma with a line over the sigma doing essentially the same thing our apostrophe does, indicate the missing letter or letters in a contraction. Theta sigma was an acceptable abbreviation for the word "Theos" often used by the scribes.

    John Burgon says, "The fact remains for all that, that the original reading of A is attested so amply, that no sincere lover of Truth can ever hereafter pretend to doubt it... it is too late by 150 years to contend on the negative side of the question... The plain fact concerning Cod. A is this - That at 1 Tim. iii. 16, two delicate horizontal strokes in THEOS which were thoroughly patent in 1628, which could be seen plainly down to 1737, and which were discernible by an expert (Dr. Woide) so late as A.D. 1765, have for the last hundred years entirely disappeared, which is precisely what Berriman in 1741 predicted would be the case." Revision Revised, 432-436

    Even James White says "there is much to be said in defense of the KJV rendering," and that "I prefer this reading, and feel that it has more than sufficient support among the Greek manuscripts." (King James Only Controversy, page 207 and following.)
     
  8. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,461
    Likes Received:
    1,225
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Greek texts of:
    Elzevir Textus Receptus (1624)
    Stephen's Textus Receptus (1550)
    Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894)
    and
    The Greek New Testament according to the Byzantine text form, (2000 Revision)
    all testify to theos (not to the abbreviation).

    The external evidence for “He” (“os) is seen in Unicals Aleph, A (vid), C, G (gr), as well as 33,365,442,2127, syr (hmg, pal) goth eth (pp), Origen (lat), Epiphanius, Jerome, Theodore, Eutherius (acc to Theodoret), Cyril, Cyril (acc to Ps-Oecumenius), and Liberatus

    Pastor, you are far more educated than myself to evaluate what Metzger writes regarding the internal evidence.
    He writes: “Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun “o must have arisen as a scribal correction of “os (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον), the witnesses that read “o …also indirectly presuppose “os as the earlier reading.”
    Manuscripts with the reading “THS” are not seen until the eighth or ninth century.

    Rob
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You seem confused regarding the difference between a manuscript and a text. Texts are edited, set in type, and printed on printing presses. Manuscripts were the hand copied apographs copied by the scribes. Texts can say anything the editor wants them to say. Manuscripts were treated much differently and there were 5 accepted abbreviations used by the scribes in copying the New Testament manuscripts.
    Once again you are confused. It is the reading of Aleph that is in contention in the Burgon quote.
    Read Burgon's treatise on the verse, and look at the Byzantine textform. Also look at the Western textform. It dates to as early as the 3rd century and reads "THS."
     
  10. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Uh, it does. Yom is translated time 64 times, daily 44 times, ever 18 times, year 14 times, continually 10 times, when 10 times, as 10 times, while 8 times, full 8 times, always 8 times, whole 4 times - well, you get the idea. </font>[/QUOTE]Two different translations cannot be right. It is possible all are wrong but not all can be right when they differ.

    If I go with what you write then it may agree with the MT but it still does not agree with the LXX. The word for "three days" in the LXX is only found in Amos 4:4. If one takes your position then the KJV and NIV agree with only the MT and not the LXX. If I take my position then the NAS agrees with both the MT and LXX and disagrees with the KJV and NIV.
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,461
    Likes Received:
    1,225
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Suffice to say that there is documentary evidence for both positions taken in 1 Timothy 3:16 and choosing one over the other does not constitute an attack on the deity of of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    The above quote is from the first English New Testament from the year 1385 translated by John Wycliffe, “The Morning Star of the Reformation”.

    Thank you Dr Cassidy for a good discussion!
    I admire your willingness to hold to a Byzantine priority position and still battle with the KJVo issue.

    Rob
     
  12. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is a big difference in apologetics between theos (or THS) and o's. If you debate with JW referring to this THS, JW lose the ground unless they deny THS.

    Interestingly, those texts which have "os" omitted John 8:1-11 too.

    If you distrust those texts with theta sigma in 1 Timothy, why don't you delete the story of the woman caught in adultery?

    Apparently Deity of Jesus is downgraded by replacement God with He.

    Eph 3:9 without thru Jesus Christ also diminish the deity of Jesus as a pre-existent Creator.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...