Mark 1 2-3

[veryberry]

as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “ I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”— “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’” ~ NIV

What is wrong with this picture?

 

[Sparkey]

This is a very clear picture of the voice heard through John the Baptist.

What is wrong? I'm unsure of your meaning. I don't know that there is anything wrong with the "picture" that was spoken through the Prophet Isaiah so many years prior. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective? There may be some confusion when we find ourselves looking back at that period of time (from the 21st Century) instead of looking forward from Isaiah's time?

Maybe you could clarify what you mean.

 

[veryberry]

Only half of it is written by Isaiah, The other is written by Malachi...

Malachi 3: 1 - Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:...

Isaiah 40: 3 - The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

How come ALL the new versions make this same mistake?

King James seems to have it right -" as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. "

 

[Sparkey]

Thanks. I had not noticed that.

 

[chessman]

How come ALL the new versions make this same mistake?

King James seems to have it right

How would one go about knowing what is "right" versus wrong? You might note the ESV has extensive notes of the variances both at the beginning of Mark and the ending if it. Oddly, my bibles typically wear out at the beginning and ending pages. Yes. I know a scroll of one book is not the same as a binding of loose pages glued together in a volume. But could this be the result of copies that had lots of use, basically wearing out at the front and end? IDK.

I think one of the ESV notes may explain a lot. It says early manuscripts have Mark saying, prophets (plural) in verse 2, yet he is only calling out Isaiah by name. Later, Mark clearly quotes Mal and other prophets.

I've heard it said that Mark is like the headline news of the historical gospels. Maybe he just summarized.

I personally like the idea of rendering all the available manuscripts as best we can, especially knowing that many old ones have been found since the 1611.

 

[Deborah13]

as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “ I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”— “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’” ~ NIV

What is wrong with this picture?

The NASB, says the same thing as the NIV. The differences occur between which old texts are used. This is a quote from wiki on which texts were used to translate the NASB and the KJV.

NASB - "In the updated NASB, consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with an emphasis on determining the best Greek text. Primarily, the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece is closely followed. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is also employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible

KJV - The translations for the KJV are more complicated, as it is older and changes were made. Here's the link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

 

[OhFarouk]

The NASB, says the same thing as the NIV. The differences occur between which old texts are used. This is a quote from wiki on which texts were used to translate the NASB and the KJV.

NASB - "In the updated NASB, consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with an emphasis on determining the best Greek text. Primarily, the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece is closely followed. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is also employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible

KJV - The translations for the KJV are more complicated, as it is older and changes were made. Here's the link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Deborah13: It's partly a quotation from Isaiah, and partly from Malachi. Far from the King James not being preferable, there is maybe a case for saying that its reading is indeed preferable.

Two cents'.

Blessings.

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah13: It's partly a quotation from Isaiah, and partly from Malachi. Far from the King James not being preferable, there is maybe a case for saying that its reading is indeed preferable.

Two cents'.

Blessings.

My point in posting at all was just to point out that how the differences in translations came about.
Nothing more, nothing else.

 

[OhFarouk]

My point in posting at all was just to point out that how the differences in translations came about.
Nothing more, nothing else.

The difference is textual, really. Textus Receptus/Majority text has 'prophets'.

Blessings.

 

[About the Son of God]

The difference is textual, really. Textus Receptus/Majority text has 'prophets'.

Blessings.

Oh..., where does it get the name "majority"?

I've looked both at texts from around ~325 to 400A.D.(AKA C.E), and modern ones. Essentially everything I can find from archaeological/traceable texts (originals) say In Isaiah; eg: "In the Esaia" (εν τω ησαια) in Mark 1:2.

The KJV N.T. is translated from Greek texts (ancient sources) -- but exactly which do you think the KJV is translated from ? Where's a copy of it?

The only Greek texts I found that have "prophets" is T.R., Stephanus, which is a recension made around the year 1550. (and Erasmus comes up often in connection with it, so perhaps that is the source Stephanus was using). But a recension, as far as I know, is a "Correction" of the Greek, where (in this case) the Greek original was edited to agree in places with the Latin Vulgate. ( That's the Catholic copy of the bible, AKA from just outside Rome. Erasmus is famous for that.)

But, when I check the modern Vulgate (which has been edited since that time, too) even it now says "Isaiah". And the 26th N.A. also says Isaiah. And from ancient history (cf: Jerome, Year ~400A.D.) there are letters containing debates with bible critics which note that their copies said "Isaiah." even back then.

So, although I agree with the explanation of "Textus Receptus"; (Erasmus/Stephanus/and perhaps very late Bezae Greek from the middle ages)
I've never quite understood what makes it a "majority". Those are all edited texts with Roman Catholic's influencing them.

Is it a majority of parliment from 1600's who voted, or of some particular text or a majority by virtue of the printing press being invented, or what?