Featured A better English Bible.

Well please excuse me. I was sort of playing games with you.
The person that translated this work believes that any changes one might make to his work would mean that it no longer the Byzantine Text Version.

I said it before,
Whether right or wrong, I don't believe anyone has ever changed their mind by reading posts on the BaptistBoard.

Rob

 

In other words, if you made a version called The Deacon Version, and allowed others to use and publish it, but if they made changes to your Version, they could no longer call it The Deacon Version, because they made changes to your Version. You wouldn't want to be responsible for the changes someone was allowed to make.

 

• Isn’t it strange that God made his word without a copyright.
• Isn’t it strange that he endowed mankind to translate his word into a multitude of languages so that all mankind might hear his message and come to salvation.
• Isn’t it strange that we can use a multitude of varying words and expressions and still convey his message.
• Isn’t it strange that God will always be true to His word even though fallible mankind occasionally fails to transmit it properly.
• Isn’t it strange that despite having a Bible that contains words that vary from manuscript to manuscript, version to version, congregations can still properly worship our God in spirit and truth.
• Isn’t it strange that God entrusts fallible mankind to transmit his infallible word.

Rob

 

What I really like about the
The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version is that the correct reading will either be in the main text or if not it will be in the footnotes, with an idea of support for most variants. That it has almost all important textual variants on the same page means you have the Original Text on the same page.

Almost all other Bibles only have a few Textual footnotes in theirs, meaning you may not have the Original Text on that page, but would have to go to another Bible or book for the correct reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Text-Critica...9c-9814-73320d326305&pd_rd_i=B0BCD849S5&psc=1

 

But there seems to be little discussion of specific improvements that could be made, given the modern consensus of most probable meaning.

Here is John 3:16, God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have everlasting life.

This version is not found in any of the 60 or so English translations.

1) Why translate the obvious meaning of humanity as "world?"
2) Why translate "monogenes" as one and only or begotten? The word means one of a kind or unique.
3) Why translate "eis" as "in" rather than its actual literal meaning of "into?"
4) Why translate life with a beginning but no end in the same way as is life with no beginning and no end? Why not use everlasting for life with God for humans, and eternal for God's lifespan, with no beginning or end.

Similar questions can be asked all through the NT, but the only defense for continuing poor translation choices seems to be people once accepting a particular translation as God's truth do not want to accept that their understanding was off the mark.

 

A lot of sidetrack blather has been posted about how the CT or TR or MT is the issue rather than translating the intended message into English.

My understanding is much of the New Testament reads pretty much the same in all three versions, but all three version translations could be vastly improved. Why not focus on four or five of these verses and see what should be done.

 

What does "loved the world" mean if only those who believe in[into] Christ receive the benefit of that love. No, God loved humanity in this way provides a better translation.

Christ is not God's "one and only Son!" Adam was a son of God, and every born anew believer is a "son of God." So unique or one of a kind or uniquely divine are superior translation choices.

Whoever believes in Him indicates if a person puts their trust in Christ, they will obtain eternal life. That is false doctrine, thus a very poor translation. Everyone believing into Him presents the actual meaning.

 

[QUOTE="Conan, post: 2887798, member: 15211"]What I really like about the
The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version is that the correct reading will either be in the main text or if not it will be in the footnotes, with an idea of support for most variants. That it has almost all important textual variants on the same page means you have the Original Text on the same page.

Almost all other Bibles only have a few Textual footnotes in theirs, meaning you may not have the Original Text on that page, but would have to go to another Bible or book for the correct reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Text-Critica...9c-9814-73320d326305&pd_rd_i=B0BCD849S5&psc=1[/QUOTE]


But others would offer a differing opinion of what is the beast set of manuscripts to use

The Byzantine text family that makes up the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV, and the NKJV is 80-85% in agreement with the Alexandrian text family that is behind almost all modern translations. The King James Version Onlyists (KJVOists) & the Textus Receptus Onlyists (TROists) call the differences omissions in the Westcott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament (NA). They would argue that many of the differences are actually additions to the original texts, which have now been restored to their original form by removing spurious interpolations. Who is correct?

The Byzantine copyists (5th century to the 12th century) were prone to add to the Greek NT text, to elaborate, and to paraphrase. The Textus Receptus that was made from a handful of 12th-century Byzantine manuscripts has 2,877 additions to the Codex Vaticanus (300-325 C.E.). KJVOists & TROists decry this, saying they are omissions instead of additions. The Alexandrian copyists (125 C.E. to the 9th century) do not contain these additions. The Alexandrian text-type “is generally shorter than the text of other forms, and it does not exhibit the degree of grammatical and stylistic polishing that is characteristic of the Byzantine type of text.”[1] If the Byzantine text-type (5th-12th cent.) was reflective of the original, would it not have been what we found in the papyri manuscripts that date to (125-350 C.E.) that were discovered throughout the 1930s to the 1950s?

Of course, if one is of the KJVOists & TROists view because he or she was first acquainted with the Textus Receptus (Received Text) as a reader of the King James Bible only, these 2,877 variants would seem to be omissions from the Westcott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament. However, if they can see that we have discovered over 85 Greek NT papyri manuscripts in the 20th/21st centuries that date centuries before the Byzantine text and all of them are of the Alexandrian text-type.

OMISSIONS or ADDITIONS?: Why Are Thousands of Variant Readings Missing from the Modern Bible Translations? - Updated American Standard Version

It all comes down to a matter of opinion, who is to say which is correct?

 

Empirical evidence would suggest that you have a faulty view of the role of the Holy Spirit.

Now that would be an interesting thread topic!

Rob

 

Thank you for your response. I have as a student studied textual criticism for 30 years. That does not make me an expert but I would consider the information partially out of date. I disagree with most of it. Of course that does not mean that I am mostly correct, although I believe that I am. Almost certain. But lets say that I am wrong.

By using the The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version, I will always have the correct reading on the same page. I believe it will be in the Text of the Bible itself. But if it is mistaken then the correct reading will be in the footnotes on the bottom of the same page. These footnotes incorporate many Greek New Testaments, including your favorite critical text ones. So the Original Reading's of the Apostle's and their companions are guaranteed to be on the same page.

If I use a let's say New American Standard Bible, I will be limited to their choice of Nestle/Aland and only a few footnotes. Now the NASB is an excellent Bible. An excellent literal Version, updated to the latest version of Nestle/Aland. But Nestle/Aland cannot always be right. And since the version notes only a few variants it's possible the correct reading is not on the page, or even in the version at all. Yet with the The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version I have all readings on the same page. I don't have to get another Bible or commentary to look up variant readings.