The essence is there!
Cheers,
Jim
Footnotes in Translations: Good or Bad?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by jbh28, Sep 20, 2010.
Page 2 of 6
-
The problem is, as was mentioned, verse numbers are irrelevant. Whether the phrase "For there are three that testify" belongs in verse 7 or 8 is irrelevant. You are avoiding the point that I showed you a text that was not included and put in footnotes in the KJV. That is what you asked me to show you and I did. I showed you a text where the kjv did not include it in the passage but put it in footnotes.
remember what you asked...?
Whether it is a whole verse or part of a verse is irrelevant. Verse numbers are not inspired nor original. -
But I have learned that the most reasonable objections against King James Onlyism are met with nonsense responses. -
Any objection against KJVO is met with unreasonable responses :)
-
And, by the way, I again stress that I didn't begin by bringing up the KJ nor am I arguing for a KJVO position. In fact, I mentioned that other older english translations have it essentially the same as the KJ. As far as I know, the typical KJVO position is that the KJ is the only valid english translation. Pointing to older english translations really goes against the KJVO position. But, when one objects at all to a single modern english translation or one of the practices of their translators, he/she is automatically cast as a staunch KJV Onlyist spewing out their rhetoric. -
-
There are different kinds of footnotes. If a footnote simply gives a modern word to explain an archaic word, I have no problem with that type of note as long as it is accurate.
But footnotes that say things like "older manuscripts omit this verse" or "better manuscripts omit this verse" do nothing but introduce doubt. We are to live by faith, we are to believe the scriptures by faith. How can you have faith in scripture if you do not know for certain whether it should be there or not? You can't. It causes doubt, it causes confusion, and God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33).
Several times in the scriptures God warns not to add or diminish from his words. This strongly implies that God's exact words can be known and identified. How could you possibly know if you are adding or diminishing from God's word unless you could know his exact words? You can't. So, these verses show God's exact words can be known.
Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you
Deut 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I don't care if the original KJB had footnotes like this, I personally do not like them. It was footnotes like this that caused me much doubt and confusion when I was a young person and led me to search for God's preserved and pure word. I did believe God's promise that he would preserve his pure word to all generations, so I started with the presupposition that God's pure word exists and can be identified. I came to believe the RT and the KJB which came from it is that word. -
Wow - you have such a weak argument and it's getting weaker. Man-made doctrine is so dangerous and you're showing us just why. -
-
Here is what the ESV Study Bible has to say and I think it's being quite honest and faithful to God as opposed to hiding the truth:
Some ancient manuscripts of Mark's Gospel contain these verses and others do not, which presents a puzzle for scholars who specialize in the history of such manuscripts. This longer ending is missing from various old and reliable Greek manuscripts (esp. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), as well as numerous early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers (e.g., Origen and Clement of Alexandria) did not appear to know of these verses. Eusebius and Jerome state that this section is missing in most manuscripts available at their time. And some manuscripts that contain vv. 9–20 indicate that older manuscripts lack the section. On the other hand, some early and many later manuscripts (such as the manuscripts known as A, C, and D) contain vv. 9–20, and many church fathers (such as Irenaeus) evidently knew of these verses. As for the verses themselves, they contain various Greek words and expressions uncommon to Mark, and there are stylistic differences as well. Many think this shows vv. 9–20 to be a later addition. In summary, vv. 9–20 should be read with caution. As in many translations, the editors of the ESV have placed the section within brackets, showing their doubts as to whether it was originally part of what Mark wrote, but also recognizing its long history of acceptance by many in the church. The content of vv. 9–20 is best explained by reference to other passages in the Gospels and the rest of the NT. (Most of its content is found elsewhere, and no point of doctrine is affected by the absence or presence of vv. 9–20.) With particular reference to v. 18, there is no command to pick up serpents or to drink deadly poison; there is merely a promise of protection as found in other parts of the NT (see Acts 28:3–4; James 5:13–16). (See The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts.)
* ESV Study Bible notes on Mark 16:9-20 -
-
-
-
-
Here is a very important difference that affects doctrine, Matthew 1:25.
KJB- And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
NIV- But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Notice the NIV omits the word "firstborn". Is that important? Yes, because it shows Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus was born. This refutes the false Catholic teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
You might argue, Yes, but in other verses the NIV shows Jesus had brothers and sisters. And you would be correct, it does, but is easily explained away by the Catholics. This from a Catholic site;
So, the versions based on the CT chip away at doctrine. -
There is a huge difference between leaving a verse out of the bible because you do not believe it to be authentic and placing alternate renderings in the margin.
All this does is reinforce the fact that textual criticism is a total and complete mess and is unable to give us the answers to the truly difficult questions. The best answer textual criticism can give to a problem like the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 is "make up your own mind." That's not much of an answer for a so-called scientific process to have given. -
And for someone to argue this does not affect their faith is beyond absurd. -
So let's see what Luke 2:7 in the NIV says "and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."
So where again does the CT chip away at doctrine? If that was their goal, they forgot a verse, huh? -
-
Page 2 of 6