What are the errors in the New American Standard?

Scott J said:
"Sour wine" does not equal "wine" any more than "vinegar" does.

Sour wine does not have an independent entry in the OED, so I take it 'sour wine' is merely wine that is sour, on it's way to becoming a type of vinegar.


Here is Webster's definition. Note the origin of the word:

The origin is irrelevant, look at the sense. Sour wine can with time become a type of vinegar, but not all vinegar is from sour wine. They are not synonyms. Additionally 'sour wine' is a kind of wine in a transitional state, but vinegar is not.

 

Originally posted by Archangel7:
I think it's pretty obvious that "hearing a voice" and "they heard not the voice" is a contradiction.

Only if you deny that 'to hear' has more than one sense. Do you deny it?

If it appeared in any of the modern versions, you'd probably agree that it was a contradiction; but because it appears in the KJV, you seem to be willing to make an exception.

No, but I'd likely call it a translation that needlessly gives Bible haters (atheists, etc.) something to squawk about.

At the very least, it's a poor translation in the KJV.

Since it's in the version that was universally accepted by the English speaking world for 3 centuries, used powerfully by God and is likely the single most influential book ever printed, I say with Job:

"Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth."

 

That’s an amazing application of that passage Tim1769 here is mine RE: The Elizabethan English of the KJV in 21st century America:

1 Corinthians 14:16 …how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

I hope you have a sense of humor.

HankD

 

Not to most of us.

But if someone demands that a single set of English words is the only acceptable version of the Bible then to be consistent they cannot accept 4 different accounts of the same text as inerrant.
</font>[/QUOTE]Even if those for sets are inspired by the Holy Ghost? That doesn't follow. </font>[/QUOTE]No less so than 4 different Bible versions... all communicating God's inspired Word.

 

Define "perfect"... and no, I am not kidding. There are several definitions that one might attempt to use with regard to this debate. The one that applies has to do with "lacking nothing essential to its kind."

Yes. As much as anything in this world can be historically proven, I can. There are at least 25,000 ancient documents to back up the text of the Bible. 95%+ of the actually original wording is effectively beyond dispute. Your objection would be on the same order as claiming that King James I was not a real person. We have all kinds of evidence that says he was but you never know... maybe it was just some fabrication by well meaning Brits.

See above. Men have gone to the electric chair on evidence less certain than that which attest to the text of the Bible.

If the only deviation in a prosecutors case was that one eyewitness to a murder said the murderer's shoes were gray and another said they were powder blue... I don't think any reasonable person would let the accused go. They probably wouldn't even let them go if another witness said the shoes were black and untied.

You can drop the "almost" unless you have a case in history when something done by man, even under providence, that was not in some way tainted by man's sinful frailness. When God is directly involved, the outcome is always inerrant, infallible, and without the possibility of improvement. No work of man without God's direct supervision is perfect in this way.

If you have proof to the contrary, please cite it so we can discuss.

 

Not to most of us.

But if someone demands that a single set of English words is the only acceptable version of the Bible then to be consistent they cannot accept 4 different accounts of the same text as inerrant.
</font>[/QUOTE]Even if those for sets are inspired by the Holy Ghost? That doesn't follow. </font>[/QUOTE]No less so than 4 different Bible versions... all communicating God's inspired Word. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you claiming direct inspiration of Bible versions?

 

No less so than 4 different Bible versions... all communicating God's inspired Word. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you claiming direct inspiration of Bible versions? </font>[/QUOTE]No. I am claiming that no Bible translation/version is inspired (in any manner) to the exclusion of all others save the originals. In other words, the NASB is every bit as worthy of the title "Inspired Word of God" as is the NKJV... as is the KJV... as is the Geneva Bible, etc.

 

Poor translation? No! You are mistaken to say that.

Nothing wrong! They heard a voice, not a sound because they understand what they heard. It is a voice, but they did not see a man. You got confused between a sound and a voice.

For example, my wife can hear BOTH - a sound and a voice. Our baby moved in a crib. Which one did my wife hear? A sound or a voice?

When our baby babbles, which one did my wife hear? A sound or a voice?

Nothing wrong again! No contradiction here! Read here: but THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me." That means that they did not hear what God said to Paul.

For example, I can't speak with my voice very well. When I tried to say something with my voice to BOTH -- my friend and my wife at the same time. My friend did not understand what I said. My wife understood what I said. My friend asked her what I say. My wife answered him for me. He heard my voice but my wife understands what I said.

What sound did they heard? Not a voice?

How did they not understand the voice without hearing?

The NIV is not clear on these passages.

 

Correct! Exactly!

 

Incorrect! You said "they heard not a voice" and "they heard not the voice" are a contradiction. You are mistaken to say them.

KJV Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but seeing no man."

If not a voice, did they see a man? That is very obvious to understand what they HEARD. A voice!

KJV Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me."

The voice is that they know what they hear, however they did not understand what God spoke to Paul.

" A voice" (Acts 9:7)

" THE voice" (Acts 22:9)

Are they same? Absolutely not! Contradiction? No!

 

Poor translation? No! You are mistaken to say that.</font>[/QUOTE] Au contrare, mon frere.

You contradicted yourself. They either heard a voice or they didn't... it's just that simple.

</font>[/QUOTE][/qb] That may very well be what it means... it is obviously what the NIV translators thought it meant. However, it is NOT what the KJV says in plain English. In one passage it says the heard a voice in the other it says they didn't. By the law of non-contradiction, both of these cannot be true.

Your example perfectly illustrates how the KJV errs. Your friend and your wife can both hear your voice. One understands. One does not.

However, you wouldn't say that your friend "heard not" your voice if he just didn't understand you. In one passage the NIV says that Paul's companions heard a sound which obviously means they didn't understand the speech. In the other passage, it says they didn't understand the voice. No contradiction at all.

On the other hand, the KJV clearly says first that they heard a voice then in the second just as clearly declares that they didn't hear a voice. This is a contradiction.

Having seen so many of your posts like this one, I can actually believe that you are this self-blinded to the truth on these passages.

 

Are you saying that someone else besides Jesus spoke to Paul out of the light? Put it back in context Askjo... you are doing violence to the scripture.

 

Verse reference, please.

 

However, you wouldn't say that your friend "heard not" your voice if he just didn't understand you.

Matthew 13
13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while (1) seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (NASB)

 

The 1526 and 1537 New Testament agreed with the KJV.

They said, "a" on Acts 9:7.

 

That’s an amazing application of that passage Tim1769 here is mine RE: The Elizabethan English of the KJV in 21st century America:

1 Corinthians 14:16 …how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

I hope you have a sense of humor.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]


just kidding!

If only the 19th century revision comittee had done the actual job given them, who knows... I admit archaic language is not an advantage, though its easy to overstate the problem. Everything can be understood well with just a little study. Unfortunately, the modern versions cause more problems than they solve.

 

Come on Timothy.... you know that you are ignoring context. Jesus is not recounting an event. He is illustrating a truth with figurative language.

Both Acts passages are accounts of Paul's conversion... they are not illustrations of whether his companions had spiritual understanding or not.