A
asb4God
Guest
cubedbee said:
Very nicely stated, Cubedbee! Precise, concise and elegant!
Scott 8-)
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Very nicely stated, Cubedbee! Precise, concise and elegant!
Scott 8-)
V
von
Guest
Thanks Solo: Don't worry they can not sway my faith, as you can see they have never won an argument yet. They don't have what it takes to convert anyone. All they talk about are peoples credentials and don't have a credential of any kind.
Cubedee- No all versions a not the same or we wouldn't be having this discussion. So what you are saying is that the consequences to sin that are left out of tne NIV were aded in the KJV and really never existed. You are not for real. Can't be. You'll have to read what you want and I'll read what I want. I doubt that your read either version.
Cubedee- No all versions a not the same or we wouldn't be having this discussion. So what you are saying is that the consequences to sin that are left out of tne NIV were aded in the KJV and really never existed. You are not for real. Can't be. You'll have to read what you want and I'll read what I want. I doubt that your read either version.
A
asb4God
Guest
von said:
Interesting... The paradigm in which you are living suggests that there are bogeyman out there trying to "sway your faith," rather than what is actually occuring, communicating about the nature of biblical translation as it pertains to the KJV and NIV. How on earth could you understand that to mean it is an attempt to sway your faith? That makes no sense at all.
And, frankly, how you cannot see the nature of the argument and on what sandy soil you are standing baffles the mind. But, I will be clearing it up for you as soon as I can with a little translation demonstration. I probably won't actually get to it until Saturday now as I've got something going every night through Saturday night.
How do you know we have no credentials?? I have an M.Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, one of the finest seminaries in America. What is your credential?? Considering you challenged us with having no credential, I take that to mean you have some? I would love to know what it is. Will you tell or will you not? This is going to be interesting.
von said:
You continue to misunderstand. I frankly cannot figure this out. How you can continue to miss this. Let's try again:
1. The consequences of sin are not left out of the NIV. Others in this thread have already demonstrated this.
2. The consequences are also found in the KJV.
3. Some of the verses in the KJV which demonstrate the consequences of sin were unwarranted additions in that the verses are likely not original to the Greek autographs.
PLEASE provide me with the verse that you would like me to translate.
Neither you nor Tzlam have provided this yet and I firmly believe it is because you are afraid to see the results. That is my belief. Prove me wrong by providing such a verse.
Scott 8-)
S
Solo
Guest
What baffles the mind is that you would have such a cavalier manner in posting to a wonderful Christian lady, who needs to know the peace and understanding that the Holy Spirit offers, and not the disturbing tripe that you so conveniently deliver.
Perhaps you would gain a greater intent from the audience if you would go through each item listed as inaccurate between the KJV and the NIV and explain which manuscripts were used to translate each version.
Perhaps you would gain a greater intent from the audience if you would go through each item listed as inaccurate between the KJV and the NIV and explain which manuscripts were used to translate each version.
A
asb4God
Guest
Hmmm...
Not really sure what you are talking about here. Who is this lady you speak of and what is cavalier about discussing an issue like this in an objective manner? Your designation of it as "tripe" seems more an emotional reaction to what seems to amount to a pretty solid defense of our position that you have yet to challenge adequately.
Yeah! And perhaps I would also gain a migraine and anger from my wife for such an undertaking would take about 100 hours of work! I think the title of this thread is "121 Reasons..." suggesting there are some 121 points of difference between the KJV and NIV that are in question? How 'bout I tackle just ONE so that you can see how this is all done and the reasons we are arguing that the KJV adds rather than the NIV omits?
Scott 8-)
Solo said:
Not really sure what you are talking about here. Who is this lady you speak of and what is cavalier about discussing an issue like this in an objective manner? Your designation of it as "tripe" seems more an emotional reaction to what seems to amount to a pretty solid defense of our position that you have yet to challenge adequately.
Solo said:
Yeah! And perhaps I would also gain a migraine and anger from my wife for such an undertaking would take about 100 hours of work! I think the title of this thread is "121 Reasons..." suggesting there are some 121 points of difference between the KJV and NIV that are in question? How 'bout I tackle just ONE so that you can see how this is all done and the reasons we are arguing that the KJV adds rather than the NIV omits?
Scott 8-)
V
von
Guest
I happened to ask some of your fellow buddies When they were keeping up that I have no credentials. I don't want you to interpret anything for me. You think I can't follow a post, I think the same about you. you twist everything a person says to give it a diferent meaning. You, know it is easy to ridicule and insult people over the computer ro over the phone. People don't talk to thers the way you and your buddies do when they are standing in someone's face. Must make ya feel tough.
V
von
Guest
By the way, wherever you got your credentials, it was a waste of money.
A
asb4God
Guest
Von,
It was you who brought up the issue of credentials. You stated:
Isn't that what you said? I didn't bring it up, you did. I merely demonstrated that what you said was inaccurate. Perhaps you never should have stated so emphatically that we don't have credentials when you don't know the truth of the matter?
And I don't feel tough at all. I am merely arguing a certain position. I think I have argued it better than you have argued yours and you are becoming emotional about it. Why can't you just discuss the issue in an objective manner? I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Or do you feel tough when you say something like:
That doesn't appear to be all that nice, does it?
The bottom line, as I see it, is that you (Von), solo and tzlam2 have yet to say anything convincing in your argument that the NIV has added anything inappropriately to the text of Scripture. You have given examples, but have not demonstrated why those examples should be taken seriously. And in the process you are all getting angry. Your anger is your own responsibility, of course, so I'm not terribly worried about it. But I do wish you folks would offer something more convincing than you have.
Scott 8-)
It was you who brought up the issue of credentials. You stated:
von said:
Isn't that what you said? I didn't bring it up, you did. I merely demonstrated that what you said was inaccurate. Perhaps you never should have stated so emphatically that we don't have credentials when you don't know the truth of the matter?
And I don't feel tough at all. I am merely arguing a certain position. I think I have argued it better than you have argued yours and you are becoming emotional about it. Why can't you just discuss the issue in an objective manner? I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Or do you feel tough when you say something like:
von said:
That doesn't appear to be all that nice, does it?
The bottom line, as I see it, is that you (Von), solo and tzlam2 have yet to say anything convincing in your argument that the NIV has added anything inappropriately to the text of Scripture. You have given examples, but have not demonstrated why those examples should be taken seriously. And in the process you are all getting angry. Your anger is your own responsibility, of course, so I'm not terribly worried about it. But I do wish you folks would offer something more convincing than you have.
Scott 8-)
C
cubedbee
Guest
I said they were "about the same" meaning they have the same meaning, reveal the same truths. We're having this discussion because the versions are different in regards to specific details, not overall meaning, and because KJV-onlyists falsely believe these specific detail differences are important and that the KJV is the correct version with regard to the details.von said:
Which consequences of sin are you talking about? Pick a specific verse from that first list where the NIV "ommits" a signficant doctrinal detail. I will find you multiple other Bible verses in the NIV which show that the NIV holds that same doctrine. My claim is that the KJV takes a doctrine which is evidently true from reading the whole Bible, and then inserts that doctrine in to particular verses even though the original manuscripts do not have them. Any consquence for sin found in the KJV is a consequance of sin found in the NIV---the KJV will just talk about that consquence in more verses than it should.
Yeah, I am.
Wow, seems like you make quite huge assumptions about people. I've probably read the Bible in more versions and more times than you ever will. I was a champion Bible quizzer in my day and had memorized most of the NT. I own 6 different translations of the Bible and have read them all. There's no need to insult those you don't even know and imply they aren't the kind of Christians that immerse themselves in God's word just because they use a translation you don't like. You're right that we'll both make our own decisions, and I am just trying to offer my reasons for my decision, not to attack those who make a different one.
A
asb4God
Guest
Yes
Cubedbee,
I know there is an ignore list feature on this site. Is there a feature where I can add a hero list because you're on it!
Blessings all,
Scott 8-)
Cubedbee,
I know there is an ignore list feature on this site. Is there a feature where I can add a hero list because you're on it!
Blessings all,
Scott 8-)
V
von
Guest
ask4God-I have been in other "discussions" with your fellow buddies who are eager to discuss historical facts. So, in my quest I wondered what kind of degree they had. (That was the subject) Amazingly enough they all except for you said that they had none. so, I'm figuring that puts you equal with me. Not above like you tend to think. I do not get mad at people who want to discuss their differences, you however and all of your buddies do not discuss. You make yourselves look like fools by being arrogant and disrespectful of those who disagree with you.
You have no right to tell people they shouldn't insult you until you stop insulting, but you know what I am going to stop stooping to your level, so therefore I apologize for insulting you. You see, you can only kick a dog so many times until it bites back, but I have self-control and I will do my best to use it. just because you and your buddies take highly to insulting people doesn't mean that when someone replies to you they are attempting to insult you.
Cubadee-Just like I said you read neither version, you read every version.
You have no right to tell people they shouldn't insult you until you stop insulting, but you know what I am going to stop stooping to your level, so therefore I apologize for insulting you. You see, you can only kick a dog so many times until it bites back, but I have self-control and I will do my best to use it. just because you and your buddies take highly to insulting people doesn't mean that when someone replies to you they are attempting to insult you.
Cubadee-Just like I said you read neither version, you read every version.
Y
yesha
Guest
That does seem to indicate that there must be in some kind of greek text.
I did a little searching and found a site that has text from four sources.
And sure enough, three of the four have the missing words which explains why my KJV didn't italicize those words. Thus in those previous two examples, the KJV did not infact add those words, as my interlinear suggested. Also, of course the niv didn't remove them, they were simply using different sources for translation. Also in this case the niv didn't footnote the variance, although other translation, like the HCSB which has tons of footnotes does.
from:
http://www.proveallthings.org/download/ ... ive_nt.txt
1:16 ou gar epaiscunomai to euaggelion B=tou B=cristou dunamij gar qeou estin eij swthrian
panti tw pisteuonti ioudaiw te prwton kai ellhni
3:9 kai fwtisai A=[pantaj] B=pantaj tij h AM=oikonomia TK=koinwnia tou musthriou tou
apokekrummenou apo twn aiwnwn en tw qew tw ta panta ktisanti B=dia B=ihsou B=cristou
The following tags precede those words which are peculiar to one printed text. Where the four texts do not differ, there are no tags.
T = (Textus Receptus) Stephens, 1550, editio regia (royal edition) (reproduced, 1897).
The text used is George Ricker Berry's edition found in The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament (New York: Hinds & Noble, 1897). This text is virtually identical to editions of Disiderius Erasmus (1516, 1519, 1522, 1535), Complutensian Polyglot (1522, 1564, 1573, 1574, 1584, 1590, 1609, 1619, 1620, 1628, 1632), Simon Colinaeus (1534), Robert Stephens (1546, 1549, 1550, 1551), Theodore Beza (1565, 1582, 1588, 1598), and Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir (1624, 1633, 1641). The edition first named "Textus Receptus" was Elzevir 1633 "textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum."
K = (KJV 1611) Scrivener 1894, 1902 (reproduced, 1976).
This is the text of H KAINH DIAQHKH, The New Testament, The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1976). This is an unedited reprint of F.H.A. Scrivener’s "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge: University Press, 1894, reprint edition 1902). This is a reconstruction of the Greek text underlying the English 1611, it largely follows Beza 1598, and though sometimes the KJV text follows no Greek manuscript whatsoever, Scrivener nowhere constructs a Greek reading without some manuscript evidence. Though this edition generally follows the "Byzantine" texts, it nevertheless agrees with the modern "Alexandrian" editions in many places.
M = Majority 1911 / 1929  1982.
In The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 1985) Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad developed a method of identifying and weighing manuscript evidence. This is a critical text constructed from the apparatus of other critical editions (Freiherr Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer altesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911, and Herman C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929). This same information was later used by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont in The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform (Original Word Publishers, Atlanta, 1991, 1995). They disagree with Hodges and Farstad regarding the evaluation of manuscript evidence, but nevertheless agree on 99.75 percent of the text.
B = [TKM=] Byzantine.
Where T [Stephanus  Textus Receptus], K [Scrivener  King James] , and M [Hodges, Farstad  Robinson, Pierpont] agree, we have simplified the marking with a B for Byzantine.
A = Alexandrian 1975.
This is the text of The Greek New Testament, 3rd edition (Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Wikgren, United Bible Society, 1975, corrected 1983, the same as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart, 1979). It is mostly in agreement with the original Westcott and Hort Text of the Nineteenth Century. It is largely the text used in all modern translations of the Bible, such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version. Most of the Alexandrian variants from the Textus Receptus are matters of spelling and word order, but that does not reduce the significance of selected variants.
S
Solo
Guest
Beware of Westcott and Hort.yesha said:
A
asb4God
Guest
Solo said:
No.
Scott 8-)
S
Solo
Guest
None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. This includes translations done by theological conservatives  the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples  and translations done by theological liberals  the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html
Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/ ... iblecenter
Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common people accepted them as authentic. Westcott states:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no less necessary that he would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/ ... iblecenter
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html
Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/ ... iblecenter
Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common people accepted them as authentic. Westcott states:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no less necessary that he would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/ ... iblecenter
A
asb4God
Guest
Text Criticism
Yesha,
Thanks for your post. I'm going to add a bit to it to demonstrate a few important features of the "text criticism" portion of translation.
The first portion of Romans 1:16 in the NA27 says the following, in Greek: (I am taking this information from the book sitting in front of me: Novum Testamentum Graece, by Nestle-Aland 27th ed. (a.k.a. NA 27), which as you probably are aware is the Greek New Testament in Greek by NA. This is the standard Greek text currently in use. At the bottom of the page is a run down of alternative Greek readings and the locations where that alternative reading is found in the ancient manuscripts. The bottom section is called the Aparatus.)
Romans 1:16a - Greek with word for word translation
Ou gar epaischunomai to euangelion, dunamis gar theou estin
Not for I am ashamed the Gospel , power for of God it is
This is how it reads in these various versions - you will note that "of Christ" is only found in the KJV.
KJV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
NIV Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
NAS Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
NAU Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Now let's look at exactly why what the KJV adds incorrectly the rest of the versions omit correctly...
1. The Greek text in the body of the page does not have of Christ, which in Greek is tou Christou. This is because Nestle-Aland do not consider it to be original. Let me demonstrate why...
2. The Aparatus (footnotes of your study Bible, bottom of the Greek Bible) tells us that of Christ IS found in the following manuscripts: (PLEASE pay attention to the dates when these manuscripts were created many hundreds of years ago. The dates do NOT reflect when these manuscripts were found, but rather when they were created!)
Dc - A "Western" text family text from the 12 Century A.D. (not good)
044 - An Alexandrian text from the 8th Century A.D. (better)
M - "majority text" - a catch-all for a "lot" of manuscripts of later dating
3. The Aparatus tells us that of Christ is NOT found in the following manuscripts:
P26 - circa 600 A.D. - considered a "consistently cited witness of the first order" (good)
(01) - 4th Century A.D. - an Alexandrian "category I" text ("Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be considered in establishing the original text.") - the earliest of any document with Romans 1:16. (best)
A (02) - 4th C. A.D. - Alexandrian "category I" (very good)
B (03) - 4th C. A.D. - Alexandrian "category I" (very good)
C (04) - 5th C. A.D. - Alexandrian "category II" ("Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of category I by the presence of alien influences (particularly of the Byzantine text), and yet of importance for establishing the original text.") (very good)
D (06) - 6th C. A.D. - Western "category II" (good)
G (012) - 9th C. A.D. - Western "category II" (good)
33 - 9th C. A.D. - Alexandrian "category I" (good)
81 - 1044 A.D. - Alexandrian "category II" (good)
1505 - 11th C. A.D.
(and more not listed here)
lat - "represents the support of the Vulgate"
sy - "All the Syriac versions extant for the passage witness to the Greek reading."
co - "All the Coptic versions extant for the passage witness to the Greek reading."
So, the BIG QUESTION:Why would an 8th Century text (044) have "of Christ" when so many earlier manuscripts do not??
1. Notice that the 8th C. text (044) is Alexandrian - just like all those earlier (and later!) manuscripts from the same Alexandrian family. This means that something unique happened to bring "of Christ" into this text family at this ONE point in time, but it DID NOT continue thereafter until it found its way back into the Western text of the 12th C...
2a. The Answer Part I: Notice that "Gospel of Christ" is found in the following verses: Romans 15:19; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 2:12, 9:13, 10:14; Galatians 1:7; Philippians 1:27; 1 Thess 3:2.
2b. The Answer Part II: "Gospel of Christ" is settled doctrine according to the Scripture, right? Yes.
2c. The Answer Part III: When a scribe came along and was copying what became known to us as (044) he noticed that it only said "Gospel." Knowing that elsewhere in Scripture it says "Gospel of Christ," he very likely added it to (044) thinking that it was omitted by mistake by a previous scribe. In fact, this was something commonly done by scribes.
3. Two of the ways we judge which reading is MOST likely when comparing documents to each other are called
"lectio brevior" - which means "shorter reading" and "lectio dificilior" - which means "difficult reading." We often accept the reading we find that is both more brief and more difficult because it is more likely that a scribe added something thinking incorrectly that something was omitted and we accept the more difficult reading because sribes usually repaired rather than made more difficult. So, we are trying to get into the head of the sribe and determine why he made the decision he made.
4. In our example, then, the reading WITHOUT "of Christ" is lectio brevior, lectio dificilior and is attested by the most ancient documents.
In summary, the most likely reading is not "of Christ" as this was most likely added for the reasons described above.
So, while in 1611 the KJV could not have known all of this, the NIV and NASB, et al, understood both the nature of scribal transmission and had discovered previously unknown documents which did not have the reading "of Christ."
Therefore, the NIV is correct in leaving it out and has omitted nothing nefariously.
I hope this has been helpful.
Blessings all,
Scott 8-)
Yesha,
Thanks for your post. I'm going to add a bit to it to demonstrate a few important features of the "text criticism" portion of translation.
The first portion of Romans 1:16 in the NA27 says the following, in Greek: (I am taking this information from the book sitting in front of me: Novum Testamentum Graece, by Nestle-Aland 27th ed. (a.k.a. NA 27), which as you probably are aware is the Greek New Testament in Greek by NA. This is the standard Greek text currently in use. At the bottom of the page is a run down of alternative Greek readings and the locations where that alternative reading is found in the ancient manuscripts. The bottom section is called the Aparatus.)
Romans 1:16a - Greek with word for word translation
Ou gar epaischunomai to euangelion, dunamis gar theou estin
Not for I am ashamed the Gospel , power for of God it is
This is how it reads in these various versions - you will note that "of Christ" is only found in the KJV.
KJV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
NIV Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
NAS Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
NAU Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Now let's look at exactly why what the KJV adds incorrectly the rest of the versions omit correctly...
1. The Greek text in the body of the page does not have of Christ, which in Greek is tou Christou. This is because Nestle-Aland do not consider it to be original. Let me demonstrate why...
2. The Aparatus (footnotes of your study Bible, bottom of the Greek Bible) tells us that of Christ IS found in the following manuscripts: (PLEASE pay attention to the dates when these manuscripts were created many hundreds of years ago. The dates do NOT reflect when these manuscripts were found, but rather when they were created!)
Dc - A "Western" text family text from the 12 Century A.D. (not good)
044 - An Alexandrian text from the 8th Century A.D. (better)
M - "majority text" - a catch-all for a "lot" of manuscripts of later dating
3. The Aparatus tells us that of Christ is NOT found in the following manuscripts:
P26 - circa 600 A.D. - considered a "consistently cited witness of the first order" (good)
(01) - 4th Century A.D. - an Alexandrian "category I" text ("Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be considered in establishing the original text.") - the earliest of any document with Romans 1:16. (best)
A (02) - 4th C. A.D. - Alexandrian "category I" (very good)
B (03) - 4th C. A.D. - Alexandrian "category I" (very good)
C (04) - 5th C. A.D. - Alexandrian "category II" ("Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of category I by the presence of alien influences (particularly of the Byzantine text), and yet of importance for establishing the original text.") (very good)
D (06) - 6th C. A.D. - Western "category II" (good)
G (012) - 9th C. A.D. - Western "category II" (good)
33 - 9th C. A.D. - Alexandrian "category I" (good)
81 - 1044 A.D. - Alexandrian "category II" (good)
1505 - 11th C. A.D.
(and more not listed here)
lat - "represents the support of the Vulgate"
sy - "All the Syriac versions extant for the passage witness to the Greek reading."
co - "All the Coptic versions extant for the passage witness to the Greek reading."
So, the BIG QUESTION:Why would an 8th Century text (044) have "of Christ" when so many earlier manuscripts do not??
1. Notice that the 8th C. text (044) is Alexandrian - just like all those earlier (and later!) manuscripts from the same Alexandrian family. This means that something unique happened to bring "of Christ" into this text family at this ONE point in time, but it DID NOT continue thereafter until it found its way back into the Western text of the 12th C...
2a. The Answer Part I: Notice that "Gospel of Christ" is found in the following verses: Romans 15:19; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 2:12, 9:13, 10:14; Galatians 1:7; Philippians 1:27; 1 Thess 3:2.
2b. The Answer Part II: "Gospel of Christ" is settled doctrine according to the Scripture, right? Yes.
2c. The Answer Part III: When a scribe came along and was copying what became known to us as (044) he noticed that it only said "Gospel." Knowing that elsewhere in Scripture it says "Gospel of Christ," he very likely added it to (044) thinking that it was omitted by mistake by a previous scribe. In fact, this was something commonly done by scribes.
3. Two of the ways we judge which reading is MOST likely when comparing documents to each other are called
"lectio brevior" - which means "shorter reading" and "lectio dificilior" - which means "difficult reading." We often accept the reading we find that is both more brief and more difficult because it is more likely that a scribe added something thinking incorrectly that something was omitted and we accept the more difficult reading because sribes usually repaired rather than made more difficult. So, we are trying to get into the head of the sribe and determine why he made the decision he made.
4. In our example, then, the reading WITHOUT "of Christ" is lectio brevior, lectio dificilior and is attested by the most ancient documents.
In summary, the most likely reading is not "of Christ" as this was most likely added for the reasons described above.
So, while in 1611 the KJV could not have known all of this, the NIV and NASB, et al, understood both the nature of scribal transmission and had discovered previously unknown documents which did not have the reading "of Christ."
Therefore, the NIV is correct in leaving it out and has omitted nothing nefariously.
I hope this has been helpful.
Blessings all,
Scott 8-)
S
Solo
Guest
Romans 1:16a
Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) 1550 edition
Textus Receptus
Scrivener's 1894 edition
Parsed and lemmatized Stephanus with Scrivener variants
Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text - Byzantine
Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) 1550 edition
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU DUNAMIJ GAR QEOU ESTIN
NOT FOR I AM ASHAMED THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST POWER FOR OF GOD IT IS
Textus Receptus
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU DUNAMIJ GAR QEOU ESTIN
Scrivener's 1894 edition
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU DUNAMIJ GAR QEOU ESTIN
Parsed and lemmatized Stephanus with Scrivener variants
1:16 ou 3756 {PRT-N} gar 1063 {CONJ} epaiscunomai 1870 5736 {V-PNI-1S} to 3588 {T-ASN} euaggelion 2098 {N-ASN} tou 3588 {T-GSM} xristou 5547 {N-GSM} dunamiv 1411 {N-NSF} gar 1063 {CONJ} yeou 2316 {N-GSM} estin 2076 5748 {V-PXI-3S}
Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text - Byzantine
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU DUNAMIJ GAR QEOU ESTIN
Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they [Westcott and Hort] had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
Therefore is the gospel that Paul is not ashamed of the gospel of Hort, the gospel of Westcott, or the gospel of Christ? With Hort and Westcott so opposed to the KJV and the Antiochian Greek text, it does not surprise me that they would select texts that did not have "of Christ". Some texts did and some texts didn't. Take your choice of which seems more truthful.
Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) 1550 edition
Textus Receptus
Scrivener's 1894 edition
Parsed and lemmatized Stephanus with Scrivener variants
Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text - Byzantine
Stephanus (Robert Etienne's) 1550 edition
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU DUNAMIJ GAR QEOU ESTIN
NOT FOR I AM ASHAMED THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST POWER FOR OF GOD IT IS
Textus Receptus
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU DUNAMIJ GAR QEOU ESTIN
Scrivener's 1894 edition
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU DUNAMIJ GAR QEOU ESTIN
Parsed and lemmatized Stephanus with Scrivener variants
1:16 ou 3756 {PRT-N} gar 1063 {CONJ} epaiscunomai 1870 5736 {V-PNI-1S} to 3588 {T-ASN} euaggelion 2098 {N-ASN} tou 3588 {T-GSM} xristou 5547 {N-GSM} dunamiv 1411 {N-NSF} gar 1063 {CONJ} yeou 2316 {N-GSM} estin 2076 5748 {V-PXI-3S}
Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text - Byzantine
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION TOU XRISTOU DUNAMIJ GAR QEOU ESTIN
Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they [Westcott and Hort] had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
Therefore is the gospel that Paul is not ashamed of the gospel of Hort, the gospel of Westcott, or the gospel of Christ? With Hort and Westcott so opposed to the KJV and the Antiochian Greek text, it does not surprise me that they would select texts that did not have "of Christ". Some texts did and some texts didn't. Take your choice of which seems more truthful.
A
asb4God
Guest
Nope
Let's break this down.
Statements:
(1) Westcott & Hort in a nefarious move, discounted the textus receptus.
(2) Other version of the Bible have been written using the textus receptus. (see list above)
(3) The newest versions of the Bible have utilized all the earliest documents which do not have "tou Christou."
Questions:
(1) How is Westcott & Hort even relevant any longer since they are long dead and today scholars of all races, creeds, heights and weights can examine in person and utilize those documents which predate those documents which contain "tou Christou," namely the 12 C. document "Dc" and the 8th C. document 044?
(2) How does solo justify preferring the use of 8th and 12th Century documents when we have documents dating back to the first half of the 4th Century which do not have the phrase in question?
(3) Was it the creators of the following texts who in some nefarious move left out incorrectly "tou Christou":
Here is the Bottom Line
The phrase "tou Christou" was most probably not in the letter Paul wrote to the Romans. When they received the letter, they most probably did not see the words "tou Christou" at the location we know as 1:16.
How do we know this? Because the phrase "tou Christou" does not exist in any known ancient document until the 8th Century and we can determine why it is found when and where it is found.
4 Questions Solo or von or Tzlam has to answer if we are to give their claims any credence whatsoever:
1. Why is the phrase "tou Christou" absent from all of those earliest documents?
2. Why does it suddenly show up in the 8th Century when there is no textual evidence that it ever existed before anyone's eyes prior to this?
3. How do you justify the preference of one 8th Century and one 12th Century document over numerous much earlier documents?
4. DO YOU SEE NOW what has happened with your 121 examples of the "omission" in the NIV of these various phrases and how it is far more likely that the KJV simply did not have the information necessary to ascertain that older documents, of which they knew nothing, did not contain those phrases?
Scott 8-)
Solo said:
Let's break this down.
Statements:
(1) Westcott & Hort in a nefarious move, discounted the textus receptus.
(2) Other version of the Bible have been written using the textus receptus. (see list above)
(3) The newest versions of the Bible have utilized all the earliest documents which do not have "tou Christou."
Questions:
(1) How is Westcott & Hort even relevant any longer since they are long dead and today scholars of all races, creeds, heights and weights can examine in person and utilize those documents which predate those documents which contain "tou Christou," namely the 12 C. document "Dc" and the 8th C. document 044?
(2) How does solo justify preferring the use of 8th and 12th Century documents when we have documents dating back to the first half of the 4th Century which do not have the phrase in question?
(3) Was it the creators of the following texts who in some nefarious move left out incorrectly "tou Christou":
- P26 - circa 600 A.D.
(01) - 4th C.
A (02) - 4th C.
B (03) - 4th C.
C (04) - 5th C.
D (06) - 6th C.
Here is the Bottom Line
The phrase "tou Christou" was most probably not in the letter Paul wrote to the Romans. When they received the letter, they most probably did not see the words "tou Christou" at the location we know as 1:16.
How do we know this? Because the phrase "tou Christou" does not exist in any known ancient document until the 8th Century and we can determine why it is found when and where it is found.
4 Questions Solo or von or Tzlam has to answer if we are to give their claims any credence whatsoever:
1. Why is the phrase "tou Christou" absent from all of those earliest documents?
2. Why does it suddenly show up in the 8th Century when there is no textual evidence that it ever existed before anyone's eyes prior to this?
3. How do you justify the preference of one 8th Century and one 12th Century document over numerous much earlier documents?
4. DO YOU SEE NOW what has happened with your 121 examples of the "omission" in the NIV of these various phrases and how it is far more likely that the KJV simply did not have the information necessary to ascertain that older documents, of which they knew nothing, did not contain those phrases?
Scott 8-)
A
asb4God
Guest
von said:
Von: Is changing my username in that fashion some sort of passive/aggressive swipe at me as though I do not have a relationship with God and therefore should "ask" 4 God? Just wondering...
von said:
S
Solo
Guest
The truth about the Greek manuscripts and translations leading to the KJV can be found at this site:
http://watch.pair.com/erasmus.html
Excerpts from the article IN DEFENSE OF ERASMUS by Dr. John Cereghin
One of the loudest and most insistent criticisms of the Authorized Version of 1611, popularly known as the King James Bible, is that its Greek Text, referred to as the Textus Receptus, is inferior to "modern" Greek texts. The attack upon the Textus Receptus centers on the one Dutch Reformation scholar responsible for publishing it, Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament in 1516 (first edition, followed by four others) which was the foundation for our modern Textus Receptus, which underlies the New Testament of the AV.
The assumption of the enemies of God's Word is that, if you can somehow discredit Erasmus or his Greek text, then you can discredit the AV. These men then level their guns at Erasmus, attacking him personally and his Greek text. Then they sit back in smug satisfaction in imagining they have accomplished their goal.
This material that I will present is by no means new. It is easily and readily available. Yet critics of the TR/AV choose to ignore it and rather parrot old and recycled arguments that they get from each other instead of relying on new research. Examples abound, from the writings of John R. Rice to Robert Sumner's booklet Bible Translations and others. A very recent example is cited by David Cloud in O Timothy, volume 12, issue 6, on pages 19 and 20. Cloud reviews an article published by Bob Jones University in their Biblical Viewpoint (Nov. 1994) by S. E. Schnaiter, in which he simply rehashes arguments he got from someone else. Schnaiter claims that Dean Burgon was not very scholarly in his defense of the AV, that the differences between the majority and minority texts are small and unimportant and that Erasmus edited his Greek text in "great haste" from manuscripts "he happened to have on hand." Now I assume that Schnaiter is no fool, for he could have used the vast BJU library to consult the same books I did. Rather, this material is overlooked and suppressed by enemies of the AV. I would even go as far as to say "conspiracy" and "cover-up." Why do these men ignore and refuse to present this material? If I can find this material, why can't they?
The AV 1611 translators also had the readings of Codex B before them and rejected them as did Erasmus. Neither was ignorant of them. Erasmus also had access to Codex D, Codex Bezae but also rejected it. The AV translators also had these variant readings and rejected them.
http://watch.pair.com/erasmus.html
Excerpts from the article IN DEFENSE OF ERASMUS by Dr. John Cereghin
One of the loudest and most insistent criticisms of the Authorized Version of 1611, popularly known as the King James Bible, is that its Greek Text, referred to as the Textus Receptus, is inferior to "modern" Greek texts. The attack upon the Textus Receptus centers on the one Dutch Reformation scholar responsible for publishing it, Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament in 1516 (first edition, followed by four others) which was the foundation for our modern Textus Receptus, which underlies the New Testament of the AV.
The assumption of the enemies of God's Word is that, if you can somehow discredit Erasmus or his Greek text, then you can discredit the AV. These men then level their guns at Erasmus, attacking him personally and his Greek text. Then they sit back in smug satisfaction in imagining they have accomplished their goal.
This material that I will present is by no means new. It is easily and readily available. Yet critics of the TR/AV choose to ignore it and rather parrot old and recycled arguments that they get from each other instead of relying on new research. Examples abound, from the writings of John R. Rice to Robert Sumner's booklet Bible Translations and others. A very recent example is cited by David Cloud in O Timothy, volume 12, issue 6, on pages 19 and 20. Cloud reviews an article published by Bob Jones University in their Biblical Viewpoint (Nov. 1994) by S. E. Schnaiter, in which he simply rehashes arguments he got from someone else. Schnaiter claims that Dean Burgon was not very scholarly in his defense of the AV, that the differences between the majority and minority texts are small and unimportant and that Erasmus edited his Greek text in "great haste" from manuscripts "he happened to have on hand." Now I assume that Schnaiter is no fool, for he could have used the vast BJU library to consult the same books I did. Rather, this material is overlooked and suppressed by enemies of the AV. I would even go as far as to say "conspiracy" and "cover-up." Why do these men ignore and refuse to present this material? If I can find this material, why can't they?
The AV 1611 translators also had the readings of Codex B before them and rejected them as did Erasmus. Neither was ignorant of them. Erasmus also had access to Codex D, Codex Bezae but also rejected it. The AV translators also had these variant readings and rejected them.