Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Well if you went to my church, you could take classes in both Hebrew
    and Greek, get college credit for them (both professors work at a local
    university), and read the Bible in its original languages.
    
    so there,
    Mike

>>TEXTUS RECEPTUS: Compiled by Emarasus (sp?) in the early...
>>...used in the KJV and the NKJV...
>>This text has the shorter ending of Mark and ...

>>UBS 3, UBS 4 and NESTLE ULAND 26: The majority of this comes...
>>...new translations, (NAB, NRSV, NIV ect)...
>>This text contains the longer ending of Mark

My understaning of this is the other way around. It is the UBS 3, UBS 4 and
NESTLE ULAND 26 used by the NIV etc that has the shorter ending of Mark and the
TEXTUS RECEPTUS the longer, my NIV here says about Mark 16:9-20

[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have
Mark 16:9-20]

If the UBS and NESTLE ULAND scripts are considered ealier then they do not have
the end of Mark.


Comments

Gary.

      My STRONG tendency is to embrace the textus receptus.  I just
      'discern' (and I know thats subjective!) that the history of
      the making of the KJV seems to tread the path of the reformation.
    
      Another thing is the idea of a line upon line study of the
      scriptures and studying by doing word searches.  I think the
      KJV adhered much more rigorously to the practise of rendering
      a specific english word to a specific greek word and thus the
      study of word searches with a KJV ought be more illuminating.
    
      Also, the KJV has those nice italics showing us when an english
      word was supplied.
    
      So, I sit back and couple these things...
    
      1) Which Bible seemed more synonymous with the reformation?
    
      2) Which Bible adhered most rigorously to using a specific
         english word for a specific original word?
    
      3) Which Bible italicized when a word was supplied?
    
      From this, I come to the conclusion that God's hand was more
      involved and thus conclude that the originals from whence this
      Bible was translated are the better.
    
      I realize this is a roundabout way!
    
    						Tony
                      

Re Note 785.0 (CSC32::KUHN)
    
    This is a subject that I've studied quite a bit myself. The only
    comment I'd make to your note right now would be to offer a slight
    correction:
    
>    MAJORITY TEXT: This is the text that is compiled to reflect what the
>    majority of ALL (TR,UBS ect.) texts say in a specific case. No bible
>    is made up of this, But NKJV bibles published by Nelson do include
>    the Majority (M-text) variants.
    
    There is a New Testament based on the Majority text. It's in Greek,
    though. (I have a copy.) Perhaps you meant no *English* Bible is made
    up of this?
    
    And, btw, the TR really comprises just a half-dozen or so manuscripts.
    In the hundreds of years since 1611 we've uncovered *thousands* of
    Greek manuscripts - many of them much older than those used in the TR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re Note 785.4 (Tony)
    
    I don't argue about such things (when I teach on this subject I am
    sensitive to the fact that a particular version of the Bible can be a
    religious issue to some ;-), but I think your note deserves a few
    comments:

>      My STRONG tendency is to embrace the textus receptus.  I just
>      'discern' (and I know thats subjective!) that the history of
>      the making of the KJV seems to tread the path of the reformation.
    
    I'm glad you realize it's subjective. You first assume that the one
    consistent with the reformation is the best one, and then you assume
    that the KJV is the most consistent with the reformation. I'm not
    prepared to agree with either of those assumptions.
    
>      Another thing is the idea of a line upon line study of the
>      scriptures and studying by doing word searches.  I think the
>      KJV adhered much more rigorously to the practise of rendering
>      a specific english word to a specific greek word and thus the
>      study of word searches with a KJV ought be more illuminating.
    
    The KJV indeed uses the principle of "formal equivalence" in its
    translation. So does the NKJV and the NAS. The NAS has the added
    "bonus" of being more consistent with the Greek word order too, so
    if this is a big factor, the NAS would score highly.
    
>      Also, the KJV has those nice italics showing us when an english
>      word was supplied.
    
    So does the NKJV and the NAS.
    
>      From this, I come to the conclusion that God's hand was more
>      involved and thus conclude that the originals from whence this
>      Bible was translated are the better.
>    
>      I realize this is a roundabout way!
    
    Yes, it is roundabout. My approach was to study textual criticism and
    follow the rules established in that discipline. The attempt is to get
    back to what *the original* text was most likely to be - and
    secondarily to determine which translations of translations most
    closely reflect this virtual original text. It may not be more accurate
    but it makes me feel more scientific :-).
    
    	BD�

      Hi Barry,
    
        I use the NKJV myself.
    
        But, I am now *intrigued* by the NAS.  How do you like it?
    
        Excellent reply!
    
    						Thanks,
    
    						Tony

    >    really? that sounds really interesting. where is your church? 
    
    Jay, it's one of the Calvary Chapels in Phoenix.

    Tony, I've been using the NAS for the past 3 years and I love it!  It's
    pretty much the standard Bible in the church where I worship.
    
    Mike

      Wow Mike.  I'll have to get one of those.  BTW, how's the Phillips?
      It certainly sounds nice.
    
      Most of my study is actually some original text.  I use Logos
      Bible software and do Concordance number searches all over the
      place.
    
      Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little
      AND context.
    
      Thats my study!
    
    						Tony

    Re: Note 785.7 by YIELD::BARBIERI
    
    Tony,
    
    I use the NKJV as my main Bible. When doing real study, I supplement it
    with the NAS, NIV, and KJV (but as you know, there's little difference
    between the NKJV and the KJV).

�        But, I am now *intrigued* by the NAS.  How do you like it?
    
    I like it a lot! It used to be my favorite before the NKJV came along.
    I love its accuracy (assuming you're ok with its using the Nestle-Aland
    text). My only complaint is that, since it does more closely follow the
    Greek word order, it's not nearly as pleasant to read as is the NKJV. I
    can't describe it any better except that to say it feels "stiff" when
    you read it. It doesn't have the nice "flow" that I've gotten used to
    as an (American :-) English-reading person. Still an excellent Bible,
    though.
    
    	BD�

    Re: Note 785.11 by CSC32::KUHN
    
�    Speaking of bibles, has anyone reading this from Colorado Springs been
�    to the United bible Society store north of town? is it worth stopping
�    to see?
    
    I'm not from the Springs, but when I was out there a while back I did
    visit the UBS (actually it may have been the International Bible
    Society - I don't remember). It was a nice little tour. Back then they
    were having their visitors write verses into what was to become a
    handwritten Bible. I don't remember what verse I wrote - I think it was
    in Exodus somewhere. If you go there, please see if you can find my
    verse for me :-).
    
    	BD�

    
    It's all greek to me!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    
    Jilla
    
    P.S.  Jay, I went out to IBS last year. Their store is tiny.  Basically
    we're talking one square bookshelf unit (about 3' squared, 5' high) in
    the lobby.  When you're ready to buy the receptionist  rings up your 
    purchase.  I wasn't there for a tour or anything, just to check  out
    the "store."  What I will say is that they have NIVs at very 
    inexpensive prices and if you wanted to have some to give away, it
    would be worth the trip.  I also remember them having the bible in some
    other languages.  They also had various books on different subjects,
    bible computer software, and some kid's videos.  Not a real big
    selection, but if they have what you want, it's worth the trip.  
    Their prices are good.
    
    
    

    Tony, Phillips is a paraphrase, but probably one of the best.  I like
    it better than Ken Taylor's Living Bible.
    
    Mike

    Jay, there are 3 Calvary Chapels in Colorado Springs.  One member is a
    RON in here that I email once in a while.
    
    Mike

    I agree with Barry on the "flow."  However, NIV is for flow, except I'm
    not NIV+.
    
    My only disappointment with the NAS is its recent sale by the Lockman
    Foundation.  Here's hoping the new owners of the copyright don't change
    anything.  It might be safe the get your copy of the NAS as soon as
    possible.
    
    Mike

    Hi Mike,
    
    I'm not NIV+ either, and while you say it flows, it's still not the
    type of flow I'm talking about. Reading the NIV is like reading any
    other book - it's not obvious that you're reading God's Word. The KJV
    and NKJV have the flow plus the grandeur appropriate to the Bible.
    
    	BD�

    Yes it is must on your trip here to the springs. All different kinds of
    literature.

 re .18




 I like the way you put that, Barry.




 Jim

      I just don't like the NIV much at all.  My bias is a little
      strong, but here it is...
    
      I think the doctrine of the humanity of Christ is extremely
      important.  I have studied it at some length and have come
      to my own conclusion that Christ took sinful flesh [sarx].
    
      Anyway, the KJV always renders sarx as flesh.  But, there are
      a couple occurances where one sees the english 'nature' in 
      the NT.  If one sees these texts, it is not possible that Jesus
      had the same 'nature' as sinful man, it is clearly inclusive
      of the mind/character.  Two verses which have this word are
      Romans 2:14 and Ephesians 2:3.  The Ephesians text is especially
      good as it includes sarx as well.
    
      The Greek from which the word nature is rendered in the KJV is
      phusis.
    
      Check out your NIV.  It actually renders BOTH PHUSIS AND SARX
      AS NATURE.
    
      Virtually no distinction between the words all the while the
      actually distinction is HUGE.
    
      Thats it...not much of a Bible for me.
    
    							Tony
               

I thought this note was about the different GREEK texts.  Don't we already
have a bunch of notes about different ENGLISH Bibles?  :-)

I know that part of discussing the Greek texts is identifying which English
Bibles use which texts, but aren't we getting pretty far afield here?

Paul

    .23  Naw Paul, it fits right in to this dicussion. :-)

      Paul,
    
        I just need to talk sometimes!
    
    						Tony

    
    What's NAB?
    

NAB = New American Bible, a liberal Roman Catholic bible.

Conservative Catholics use either the RSVCE or the 1972 RSV, but not the
original 1953 edition.

/john

    I know that this isn't *really* the place ;') - but it will do :')

    Last night, the NIV just plummetted in my estimation :'(

    Our home Bible Study Group is working it's way through Hebrews, and we
    hit Chapter 11 last night.

    I had the New American Standard, everyone else has the New
    International. We started reading through the passage, as is our
    practice, each person several verses at a time.

    When someone else read...

    "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age - and Sarah herself was
    barren - was enabled to become a father because he considered him
    faithful who had made the promise." (Heb 11:11 - NIV)

    ... I was reading...

    "By faith, even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond
    the proper time of life, since she considered him faithful who had
    promised;" (Heb 11:11 - NASV)

    I got up, checked several other translations (AV, Amplified, Darby -
    didn't get to the RSV) and the Greek Interlinear. None of them had the
    "Abraham, even though he was past age -..." stuff. Hmmm, says I.
    Looking at the NIV a little more closely, it does have the "correct"
    rendering, as a footnote :'/

    It appears that the NIV translators have interpolated their own
    theological bent on this passage, and this makes me *very* wary as to
    what they may have done elsewhere.

    As I said, the NIV just went 'out the window' as far as I am concerned.
    A pity. I was looking longingly at an Electronic Pocket Bible ;')

    So, the NASV and the AV will be my 'reading' bibles for now. Neither
    "flow" quite as easily as the NIV, but perhaps it's time I got my brain
    out of the 'moth-balls' and started using it ;')

    I guess my objection is - I want a translation of the Bible into
    English that is readable. *BUT* I don't want it predigested for me,
    I don't want it 'corrected politically' for me, I don't even need for
    it to be wonderful flowing prose.

    I want the straight translation with as few 'tweaks' as possible.
    Unfortunately, the NIV loses out on this.

    H

    Congrats Harry!

    Amen Harry!!! :-)

    well!!

    this is very reminiscent of Jan 17, 1990 :')

    Don't get me wrong. I (would like to) think that the NIV is still a
    'nice' translation... {sigh} but that seems like 'self-delusion',
    doesn't it ?  :'}

    all I want for Christmas is a decent Bible translation... :')

    Harry
    
    My NIV has got the same as what your friends read but has a foot note
    of what your Bible says for Hebrews 11. It says that it is using a more
    reliable text.
    
    BTW - I'M NOT STARTING A "WHICH BIBLE" DEBATE :-)
    
    I still love the NIV, but you do have to keep an eye on the footnotes
    and have an AV on hand just in case.
    
    Love
    Ben

I don't think this is a case of "theological bent" so much as which greek
text is considered "most reliable" and why.

I like the NKJV best for this, it doesn't make any judgements about which
text is "most reliable."  It simply says: we use the textus receptus, and
wherever another greek text differs, we footnote it.  So the foot note
doesn't say "less reliable manuscripts say ...," they just say "The majority
text says ...," or "the UBS text says ..."

Paul

I agree with Paul. The front of my REB says:

   "The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament within a generation of
    their first composition. But the transmission of the text has not been
    altogether straightforward, and there is no scholarly Greek text of 
    the New Testament which commands universal acceptance at the present
    time."

The NIV says:

    "The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic
     one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of 
     of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament...Footnotes call
     attention to where there was uncertainty about what the original text
     was."

I like our NIV, REB, NAS, Greek Interlinear, and JNT translations. Anybody
want to give us a NKJV to go along with these? :-D We have the old KJV, 
but I find it difficult to enjoy reading.

        As a matter of faith, I believe that the Textus Receptus is the
        most reliable, in spite of not being the oldest available, of the
        manuscripts.  

        As for renderings in English, it's KJV (AV) for me and my family. 
        I believe it is the word of God. It is a religious issue with me, a
        matter of personal conviction.  

        We have no problems reading it.  My six year old can read,
        memorize, recite, and understand it.  It has no copyright. No man
        or group of men claims to own it or gets royalties for the
        translation.  From my observation, those whose walks I admire in
        their quest for holiness are also AV-only.

        I believe that it was not only authorized by a king, but that it
        was authorized by THE King.  This is a matter of faith. 
        Scholarship and "criticism" can be used to show this position as
        "wrong".  Scholarship and criticism are also used to show that the
        universe is billions and billions of years old and that we are an
        accident, a hiccup in the cosmic chaos.

	Satan only had to change one word in God's directive to trick Eve.
	I believe that God is able to preserve His Word in precisely the
	way He intends it to be rendered, and that that rendering in
	English is the AV.  

	Your Elizabethan brother,
		Tony
	

  What I said was that I found it difficult to enjoy reading, not 
  necessarily difficult to read :-).

  Each to his own I guess, someday, I hope to hear and understand
  the Scriptures from Yeshua's mouth directly.

  Leslie

>  Each to his own I guess, someday, I hope to hear and understand
>  the Scriptures from Yeshua's mouth directly.

YES!  Amen to that!

Paul

RE: <<< Note 785.38 by CPCOD::JOHNSON "A rare blue and gold afternoon" >>>

> I'm tired of translation wars

	They are indeed tiresome and easily degenerate to straining at
	gnats.  It is a matter of personal conviction.  

>  What I said was that I found it difficult to enjoy reading, not 
>  necessarily difficult to read :-).

	Where's your flair for Shakespearean drama?  =8-)
        We read it out loud and "get into it."  

>  Each to his own I guess, someday, I hope to hear and understand
>  the Scriptures from Yeshua's mouth directly.

	A big AMEN to that! 

	Titus 3:9
                But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and
                contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are
                unprofitable and vain.

	1st Timothy 1:8
		But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
	

    Amen Tony!
    
    I couldn't agree more. :-)

    Hi,

    I wasn't trying to start a 'translation war' ;').

    Honest.

    But I am intrigued by the comment about the NIV rendering Heb11:11
    because of a 'more reliable m/s'? The Interlinear I have is a N-A, the
    AV and Darby are from the T-R, I would like to question their
    scholarship on this.

    If there is _one_ m/s that has this text, then I agree, it should
    (probably) appear in a footnote. But to be "promoted" to the main body
    of the text, when a number of other texts (and a larger number of
    translations from those texts) do not include that passage?

    It *seems* to me, that if it is from an 'old' m/s, that perhaps the
    scribe had a certain 'slant' on his theology, and thought that Sarah
    herself could not be attributed with having 'faith', and therefore it
    *must* have been Abraham being talked about in the passage.

    Now, let's get this straight. I am not questioning (now) the
    translations. I wanna know about this text. This m/s that is being used
    provide this verse, can anyone provide some information on it?

    Enquiring minds want to know...

    Re: Note 785.42 by BBQ::WOODWARDC
    
�    Now, let's get this straight. I am not questioning (now) the
�    translations. I wanna know about this text. This m/s that is being used
�    provide this verse, can anyone provide some information on it?
    
    Harry,
    
    There's lots more to this than I can probably offer, but I can tell you
    that the NIV reading is supported by the "Chester Beatty Papyrus II",
    which is dated around AD200. The newer NIVs (the older NIVs have the
    traditional reading) favor this reading over the traditional reading,
    which is supported by a slightly more recent papyrus.
    
    One reason why the new one has gained favor among (some?) textual
    critics is because it is the more difficult reading. (One rule of thumb
    in textual criticism is that the more difficult is to be favored - all
    other things being equal.) I believe there are a couple of other
    reasons why the new reading is favored, but I'd have to do more
    research on that. Incidentally, I think the TEV (Today's English
    Version, aka "Good News for Modern Man" (I think)) also reflects the
    reading given in the new NIV.
    
    	BD�

    Barry,

    thanks. I have heard of the CB-II papyrus (now that you mentioned its'
    name ;')

>    One reason why the new one has gained favor among (some?) textual
>    critics is because it is the more difficult reading. (One rule of thumb
>    in textual criticism is that the more difficult is to be favored - all
>    other things being equal.) I believe there are a couple of other

    Yes - I understand (and support) this. Which is _why_ I raised the
    question. It seems to me that the rendition that _doesn't_ mention
    Abraham in that verse is the 'more difficult' in the context of the
    flow of thought, than that which includes his name.

    viz.
    
    v8 - "By faith Abraham..."
    v9 - "By faith he [Abraham]..."
    v10 - "For he [Abraham]..."
    v11 - "By faith even Sarah..."  (T-R and others)
    v12 - "And so from this one man [Abraham]..."

    cf.
    v11 - "By faith Abraham..." (CB-II)

>    research on that. Incidentally, I think the TEV (Today's English
>    Version, aka "Good News for Modern Man" (I think)) also reflects the
>    reading given in the new NIV.

    This is meant to be an endorsement??? ;')

    Thanks for your efforts - much appreciated,

    Harry

   Barry,

   In textual criticism, why is the more difficult reading or rendering
   of a passage generally the preferred one?  I haven't studied much in
   the area of textual criticism so whatever info you can give in an 
   easily "digestible" format and volume would be appreciated.

   Thanks,

   Leslie

   Hi Again Barry,

   I have a follow-on question prompted by Harry's note. What is meant
   by more difficult?  Does it mean more difficult grammatically, or more
   difficult a concept (which could quite subjective to determine?), or
   what exactly?

   Thanks again,

   Leslie

Regarding "more difficult:"

My take would be that this refers to more difficult a concept.  The thought
being that given that someone at some time modified the text, it would be a
relatively rare occurrence that someone would inject a difficult concept into
a text.  There's little reason to do so.  But it is quite understandable that
someone might REMOVE from the text something that they object to, don't
understand, and don't WANT to understand.  We see just exactly that in the
new gender-neutral translation we were talking about this week.  People don't
WANT the Bible to speak in terms of gender, it offends their sensibilities,
so they remove that which offends them.  This textual criticism principle
just says that we're not the first to do this, people have been doing it for
thousands of years.

Paul

Re Note 785.44 (Harry)

me>   One reason why the new one has gained favor among (some?) textual
me>   critics is because it is the more difficult reading.

>    Yes - I understand (and support) this. Which is _why_ I raised the
>    question. It seems to me that the rendition that _doesn't_ mention
>    Abraham in that verse is the 'more difficult' in the context of the
>    flow of thought, than that which includes his name.

    Harry, the reason why it's the more difficult reading is due to a (lack
    of?) particular word in the manuscript. I'm fuzzy here; again I'd need
    to do more research to get the details right. The difference is that
    one ms has the Greek word for "barren" but the other doesn't. So it's
    the absence (or presence - sorry, I don't remember which way it goes)
    that makes the "new" reading more difficult. It's the Greek grammar
    that's difficult, not the translation or the context. And the word
    "Abraham" isn't in the ms - it is supplied by the translators.

me>   research on that. Incidentally, I think the TEV (Today's English
me>   Version, aka "Good News for Modern Man" (I think)) also reflects the
me>   reading given in the new NIV.

>    This is meant to be an endorsement??? ;')

    No. I was simply providing additional info for you. I'm not endorsing
    the NIV or the TEV. They have their place, but I think some caution is
    warranted when using them. (For that matter, I suppose some caution
    should be applied when using anything but the originals ;-)
    
    	BD�

    Hi Leslie,
    
    It's been a few years since I studied this, but I'll try to relate what
    I remember. If you need more I can crack the books again.
    
    As you can see in .48, the "difficult" issue is with the text itself,
    i.e. is the grammar clumsy, are the words used different from what one
    would typically expect, is the construction of the sentence a bit odd.
    These are the kinds of things that make a passage difficult in the
    minds of the textual critics.
    
    The thinking is that the transcribers would be less likely to make a
    mistake in this direction than the other way. As a general rule, this
    seems ok. Remember, though, it's a rule of thumb. There are other
    things that get factored into the equation of which mss are to be
    favored over others, e.g. which is the longer (versus shorter) reading,
    which is older, which don't over-emphasize a particular doctrinal
    slant, etc. The objective of textual criticism is to get as close as
    possible to what was likely the original text given the plethora of
    material that is currently available. They're not in the business of
    interpreting but in simply getting as close as possible to what was the
    originally inspired text. Once it's determined what the original text
    says, it's up to others to decide how best to represent this in our
    various translations.
    
    	BD�

    
    I wish you all would learn greek and hebrew and stop this 
    debating about translations.  It's grown very wearisome and
    what really is it accomplishing but wearing out everyone's
    next unseen key. :'D
    
    Jilla

    ;'p

    Barry,
    
    .48>                        ... (For that matter, I suppose some caution
    .48> should be applied when using anything but the originals ;-)
    
    true ;')
    
    I guess what we are discussing here, when we bring this all back into
    persepective, is something like a difference of *less*than*three*per*
    cent* of the text. And *none* of that 3 percent adversly affects any of
    the central doctrines of Christianity.
    
    Indeed, the majority of that 3% concerns a variant spelling (e.g. in
    some m/s "Prisca" in others "Pricilla" - same person, just a slight
    variant in the spelling of her name), it is only the 'interesting'
    passages where things appear to be markedly different (viz. the passage
    we are looking at here in Hebrews11:11) that are linguistically
    intriguing.
    
    As for Jilla's comment about 'we should all learn Greek and/or Hebrew'
    - true. We should. I admit however, to having little time to learn to
    'read' (in the sense of the way I read English [or 'Murikan even ;')
    ]), but I do fumble my way through the greek text with a good lexicon
    and pen and paper. A good 'Interlinear' helps too ;').
    
    The "problem" here, is that it is the greek itself that we are
    discussing - not just a variant "translation"  (e.g. Heb 4:8 - AV -
    "Jesus", just about every other English translation "Joshua" - keeping
    in mind that the name is the same.)
    
    GBY - H

    >    I wish you all would learn greek and hebrew and stop this 
    
    Alef	Alpha 
    Beth	Beta
    Gimmel	Gamma
    Dalet	Delta
    Hey		Epsilon
    Vav		Chi
    Zayin	Lambda
    Chet	Sigma
    Tet		Theta
    Yood	Omega...
    Kaf
    Lamed
    Mem
    Noon
    Samech
    Ayin
    Pey
    Tzadik
    Koof
    Reysh
    Sheen
    Tav