Hebrews 1:3

[john6:63]

I don’t consider myself a KJVO, but defiantly a KJV preferred; I tend to only study from both the KJV and NKJV.

My question surrounds Hebrews 1:3. While participating in a group study of Hebrews, I noticed that the NIV omits by Himself from the verse. Is it not that important for the reader to understand that it was Jesus and no one else, who purged our sins? And why would the modern versions what to omit by himself.

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (NIV)

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: (KJV)

 

[robycop3]

The mss used for making the NIV do not have either 'by himself' nor 'our' in that verse. I cannot answer which edition of the verse is completely correct, but both of them show it was Jesus alone who forgave sins then, same as now.

 

[RaptureReady]

Did not the translators on both sides have the same MSS?

 

[john6:63]

You’re right the NIV does leave out our. I’d have to say the KJV version of Hebrews 1:3 is the better of the two. With the NIV, you’re left with the question with whose sins? Of course we know the answer, but someone new to Christianity reading Hebrews 1:3 may not.

A few in our study group have already made the change from the NIV to the KJV. They didn’t realize how many verses the NIV omits (although they include them in the foot notes, but you have to look for ‘em) and how omitting words in verses could alter the meaning.

 

[Ransom]

john6:63 said:

Of course we know the answer, but someone new to Christianity reading Hebrews 1:3 may not.

Hebrews wasn't written to "someone new to Christianity," however. It was written to Christians of Hebrew descent who already had a good idea of the holiness of God, the seriousness of sin, and the necessity of atonement.

The original audience would not have had to ask "Whose sin did Jesus atone for?" They already knew the answer.

Just because a translation explains more, doesn't make it better. In fact, a translation that ignores the original intent of its source is a worse translation, not a better one.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Ransom:
john6:63 said:

Of course we know the answer, but someone new to Christianity reading Hebrews 1:3 may not.

Hebrews wasn't written to "someone new to Christianity," however. It was written to Christians of Hebrew descent who already had a good idea of the holiness of God, the seriousness of sin, and the necessity of atonement.

The original audience would not have had to ask "Whose sin did Jesus atone for?" They already knew the answer.

BUT, would some new to Christianity know this with out first learning it from a structured Bible study class? That’s the point I’m making.

Why did the translators of the NIV feel the need to omit certain words from Hebrews 1:3 along w/ other verses throughout the Bible? That’s what I would like to know.

 

[Ransom]

john6:63 asked:

BUT, would some new to Christianity know this with out first learning it from a structured Bible study class? That’s the point I’m making.

And the point I'm making is, the job of a Bible translation is to faithfully reproduce the meaning of the text it is translated from, not to teach Christianity 101. That is why the Church has teachers.

Why did the NIV need to omit certain words from Hebrews 1:3?

Who says that the NIV "omitted" those words and the KJV didn't add them?

 

[HankD]

Why did the KJV leave out the word "while" from Hebrews 2:9?

KJV Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

NASB But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, {namely,} Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

This has a direct bearing on the doctrine of the Kenosis of Jesus Christ. Was Jesus made lower than the angels for eternity or for a "little while" here on planet earth?

This passage is the same in the TR as well as the CT.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by john6:63:
Why did the translators of the NIV feel the need to omit certain words from Hebrews 1:3 . . . ?

The NIV is based on a different underlying text type than the KJV. The text underlying the NIV omits the words "di eautou" translated "by himself" in the KJV. That omission is supported by Aleph, A, B, D (Abschrift), H (before correction), P, Psi, 33, 81, 181 (before correction), 436, 629, 1962, and 2492.

The inclusion of "di eautou" is included in D (corrector), H (corrector), K, 121b, 88, 104, 181 (margin), 326, 330, 451, 614, 630, 1241, 1739, 1877, 1881, 1984, 1985, 2495, all the Byzantine texts, and all the lectionaries.

Additionally, the words are present with a grammatical variant in p46 (one of the oldest manuscripts in existence dated to the close of the 3rd century, or around 200 AD), D (Greek but not in the parallel Latin), and 2127.

So it seems to me that the inclusion of the words "by himself" is much better attested to than omitting those words. And even the UBS editors admit there is a "considerable degree of doubt" concerning the omitting of the words.

However, I think it is also important to note that the inclusion or exclusion of the two words does not change any bible doctrine, nor does it change the meaning of the verse. It is still clear that the "cleansing" was accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ.

My advice is to use a bible based on the Byzantine text. Those would include the MKJV, the TMB, and the NKJV, if you find the KJV language too cumbersome.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
Why did the KJV leave out the word "while" from Hebrews 2:9?

They didn't. The word "while" does not appear in the Greek. The Greek reads "τον δε βραχύ τι παρ αγγελους ηλαττωμενον βλεπομεν Ιησουν δια το παθημα του θανατου δοξη και τιμη εστεφανωμενον, πως χαριτι Θεου υπερ παντος γευσηται θανατου."

A literal translation would read, "The (One) but a little than the angels having been made less we see, Jesus, because of the suffering of death with glory and with honor having been crowned so as by grace God's for every (son) He might taste of death."

When we put the words into the syntax common in English it would read, "but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor, who on account of the suffering of death (was) made a little less than the angels, so that by (the) grace of God He might taste of death for every (son)."

 

[Pastor Larry]

A major error in thinking is being demonstrated here when John 6:63 asks what a person might understand from teh text. That is irrelevant. Many texts are confusing (cf 2 Peter 3:14). That is not the issue. The issue is, "What did the original author write?" That is the only thing that matters. In this case, there is absolutely not confusion of doctrine. The evidence points to the fact that "by himself" should indeed be omitted. The book of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ alone is the solution for sin.

But remember, what someone might understand is irrelevant.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
A major error in thinking is being demonstrated here when John 6:63 asks what a person might understand from teh text. That is irrelevant.

So what a person might understand from the text isn’t the issue, huh? So I guess this explains the acceptance of evolution in some of the denominations, Lordship salvation, Calvinism to name a few. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
That is not the issue. The issue is, "What did the original author write?" That is the only thing that matters.

BUT, I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, therefore I have to rely and equip myself with a translation that best conveys what the original author penned, so I might understand. The NIV is a very watered down translation.

 

[john6:63]

Skanwmatos,

Thanks for your explanations.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So what a person might understand from the text isn’t the issue, huh? So I guess this explains the acceptance of evolution in some of the denominations, Lordship salvation, Calvinism to name a few. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, you are misunderstanding me. I am saying that textual criticism cannot be based on the possibility taht someone might misunderstand a text, or someone might distort it. The fact that someone might not see "by himself" in Heb 1:3 and come up with a false doctrine does not mean we should add it in.

BUT, I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, therefore I have to rely and equip myself with a translation that best conveys what the original author penned, so I might understand.

I think you ought to surround yourself with many good translations. Don't rely on only one.

The NIV is a very watered down translation.

No it's not. That is a common misconception that is too often repeated. The NIV is a fine, though not perfect, translation.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by john6:63:
The NIV is a very watered down translation.

In my opinion the NIV overly uses dynamic equivalency to the point that, in some instances, it come very close to obscuring the concept of verbal inspiration. But the solution to that is pretty simple. If you don't like it, don't use it! Choose another version you are comfortable with and have confidence in. But don't make the mistake of demanding others live according to your choices and thus deny them the liberty you demand for yourself.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
The NIV is a very watered down translation.

In my opinion the NIV overly uses dynamic equivalency to the point that, in some instances, it come very close to obscuring the concept of verbal inspiration. But the solution to that is pretty simple. If you don't like it, don't use it! Choose another version you are comfortable with and have confidence in. But don't make the mistake of demanding others live according to your choices and thus deny them the liberty you demand for yourself.

</font>[/QUOTE]As I said in my OP, the study group I participate in, the majority of the participants use the NIV. They’re the ones that see the obvious differences between their NIV and my KJV or NKJV that I use. It’s to the point where some have questioned me as to why the NIV omits whole verses or why the NIV omits certain phrases from verses, such as Hebrews 1:3. They seem a little confused about their Bibles and are concerned about the accuracy of their Bible compared to my KJV or NKJV and when we come across a verse that’s obvious, they tend to like the KJV better. Some OTHO, could careless.

If I’m having a tough time understanding a verse from the KJV, I will on occasion go to a NKJV, RSV…etc, but here lately I’ve been relying on commentaries to explain a difficult verse.

 

[HankD]

They didn't

It is obvious they didn't, one can see that by reading the text.

Let me re-phrase the question.

First:
Braxu Strong's 1024
should/could be translated "while" as a short duration: 1) short, small, little
a) of place, a short distance, a little
b) of time, a short time, for a little while

As the KJV translators did in Luke 22:58
And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

Why then were they not consistent and translate "braxu" as a little while here as in Luke 22:58?

Correctly (IMO) as the following by others:

NLT What we do see is Jesus, who "for a little while was made lower than the angels" and now is "crowned with glory and honor" because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God's grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world.

RSV But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

NASB But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, {namely,} Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

As I said in my OP, the study group I participate in, the majority of the participants use the NIV. They’re the ones that see the obvious differences between their NIV and my KJV or NKJV that I use. It’s to the point where some have questioned me as to why the NIV omits whole verses or why the NIV omits certain phrases from verses, such as Hebrews 1:3. They seem a little confused about their Bibles and are concerned about the accuracy of their Bible compared to my KJV or NKJV and when we come across a verse that’s obvious, they tend to like the KJV better. Some OTHO, could careless.

In these cases, it is incumbent on the Bible study leader to explain differences. They are not major differences and there is no doctrine at stake. I have never had anyone really confused by it. As a matter of fact, I was making a joke about it last night. But I was glad someone there had the NIV so we could see their wording.

Like Skan, I don't like the extent of DE that they use. It is too much for me, but I find that almost always, when I give an alternative rendering, it is the NIV that I side with because they have done a good job with it. I use the NASB95 and have read some in the ESV lately that I enjoyed.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
As the KJV translators did in Luke 22:58
And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

Why then were they not consistent and translate "braxu" as a little while here as in Luke 22:58?

Because "little while" is a redundancy. Braxu can be translated "little" or "short." The word is used 7 times in the GNT and it is translated in the KJV "little" 4 times, "few" once, and "little space" and "little while" once each. Both "space" and "while" should, to be consistent with their philosophy of putting added words in italics, be italicized.

 

[HankD]

Because "little while" is a redundancy. Braxu can be translated "little" or "short." The word is used 7 times in the GNT and it is translated in the KJV "little" 4 times, "few" once, and "little space" and "little while" once each. Both "space" and "while" should, to be consistent with their philosophy of putting added words in italics, be italicized.

Yes, but the current online AV that I am using has no italicised words in Luke 22:58 (although they can and do signify italicised words by brackets). I'll check my First Edition AV tonight.

Also Strong's 5100 : tis
1) a certain, a certain one
2) some, some time, a while

The phrase in Hebrews 2:9 is braxu ti.
The indefinite pronoun tis an even stronger indicator of a little while.

To be consistent with Luke 22:58 and in light of the tis pron. the KJV translators should have used a little while in Hebrews 2:9.

I was disappointed with the NKJV for not using it.

My opinion of course.

HankD