What are the errors in the New American Standard?

OK Scott, as you suggested I'll drop the added word and the subordinate clause:

1 Peter 3
3 (1) Your adornment must not be ... external ... (NASB)

Can we now agree on what this says? Wives (I personally extend this to all Christians) MUST NOT ADORN EXTERNALLY.

I repeat, this is NOT MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, but the the Greek LITERALLY SAYS.

No version uses the Westcott Hort text. The WH text has been modified due to other manuscripts that have been found. The WH is the basis for many of the modern versions, but not the sole text.

Tim, as I have already said, when I was KJVO, I believed the same thing about the 1 Peter 3 text as I do today (not KJVO). The version does not produce an incorrect understanding on this passage.

Literally, it says to not adorn oneself with certain things. It doesn't rule out all outward adorning (even I agreed with your take). It only rules out certain things. Now, you want that to extend to all Christians, even though it is addressed to women.

So, here are the basic problems in your interpretation:

- you are hung up on the word "merely" (I don't need it for my interpretation and I still disagree with you)
- you are trying to extend this to all christians even though it is addressed to women
- you are imposing your predetermined belief about this to dictate other texts (1 Tim is NOT the parallel as that text deals with how one behaves in the assembly)
- you fail to understand that Paul is saying that the source of one's godliness is not to be found in outward appearances (it needs to be found from within and from without)
- you forget that the woman is to be the glory of the man, if she willingly appears as a hag, she denies a part of her role

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
I repeat, this is NOT MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, but the the Greek LITERALLY SAYS.

Click to expand...

It is your personal interpretation. The greek literally says that, but it literally means something else.

Example: if I say it is raining cats and dogs, I literally said that. I literally meant something else.

Now, I know this passage isn't hyperbole, but it illustrates what I mean.

Once again, Peter is saying that the outward appearance is not to be why a woman is beautiful. Adorning can compliment her beauty.

"The NASB DOES NOT USE THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT. Each and every time you say that it does, you make your self guilty."

No guilty! Ok, let us look at the chart here:

NASB
|
|
23rd edition Nestle Text
|
|
W/H Text

========

NASB
|
|
ASV
|
|
RV
|
|
W/H Text

========

W/H
|
|
43 MSS
|
|
2 MSS (B & Aleph MSS)

[ December 12, 2003, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Askjo ]

Askjo, if your chart is saying that the progression is from one example of the Critical text to another, and the English versions referenced are translated from one (or more) of the Critical texts, I will agree with you.

But if you are saying all of the English versions referenced were translated from the Westcott and Hort text of 1881 you are mistaken. The ERV of 1881 was, of course, as was the ASV of 1901, but the rest of the English versions you reference were translated by later expressions of the Critical text, not from the Westcott/Hort text of 1881.

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
OK Scott, as you suggested I'll drop the added word and the subordinate clause:

1 Peter 3
3 (1) Your adornment must not be ... external ... (NASB)

Click to expand...

You dropped much more than the subordinate clause. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Can we now agree on what this says? Wives (I personally extend this to all Christians) MUST NOT ADORN EXTERNALLY.

Click to expand...

No. We can agree that you have an interpretation that disagrees with other interpretations going back over 100 years.

I repeat, this is NOT MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, but the the Greek LITERALLY SAYS.

Click to expand...

I am not talking about the Greek. I am talking about the NASB. You have misinterpretted what it says... why should I trust you on the Greek?

Originally posted by Askjo:
"The NASB DOES NOT USE THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT. Each and every time you say that it does, you make your self guilty."

No guilty! Ok, let us look at the chart here:

Click to expand...

Askjo, as creative as your chart was, it does not constitute proof. You could accurately say that the NASB was translated mostly from the N-A text which is based on the same basic principles as the WH text... but you cannot say that the N-A text equals the WH text therefore you cannot say truthfully that the NASB is based on WH... I thought one of KJVO's favorite rules was "things different are not the same." I guess you are just consistent in your fondness for double standards.

BTW, when are you going to actually answer my question found here?: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001132;p=10

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Askjo, if your chart is saying that the progression is from one example of the Critical text to another, and the English versions referenced are translated from one (or more) of the Critical texts, I will agree with you.

But if you are saying all of the English versions referenced were translated from the Westcott and Hort text of 1881 you are mistaken. The ERV of 1881 was, of course, as was the ASV of 1901, but the rest of the English versions you reference were translated by later expressions of the Critical text, not from the Westcott/Hort text of 1881.

Click to expand...

I learned that all modern versions current texts are 5 Greek Critical Texts. Ok, let us look at what 5 Greek Critical texts are?

1. Eclectic Texts
2. United Bible Socities text
3. Nestle-Aland Text
4. Nestle Text
5. Westcott/Hort Text

All 4 (1 to 4) CTs went back to W/H text.

Originally posted by Askjo:
I learned that all modern versions current texts are 5 Greek Critical Texts.

Click to expand...

99.999% of your problem is that you "learned" from people who are either ignorant or more likely intentional deceivers.

BTW, when are you going to answer my question?

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
"The NASB DOES NOT USE THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT. Each and every time you say that it does, you make your self guilty."

No guilty! Ok, let us look at the chart here:

Click to expand...

Askjo, as creative as your chart was, it does not constitute proof. You could accurately say that the NASB was translated mostly from the N-A text which is based on the same basic principles as the WH text... but you cannot say that the N-A text equals the WH text therefore you cannot say truthfully that the NASB is based on WH... I thought one of KJVO's favorite rules was "things different are not the same." I guess you are just consistent in your fondness for double standards.
</font>[/QUOTE]Alright, let us look at one verse for example.

Mark 11:10 (KJV) "in the name of the Lord"

NASB omitted
Nestle Text omitted
W/H text omitted

All of them agreed each other and watered down the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
I learned that all modern versions current texts are 5 Greek Critical Texts.

Click to expand...

99.999% of your problem is that you "learned" from people who are either ignorant or more likely intentional deceivers.
</font>[/QUOTE]No plm! I learned from the Holy Spirit teaching me to find the truth.

I think it is safe to say that 1) the theories of Wescott and Hort are the basis of the several reconstructions of the non-TR Greek New Testament and 2) there is a great deal of weight given to Aleph and B because these mss lend themselves to their theories (shortest is best, oldest is best, longest is "conflation" youngest is least reliable).

In his book The Revision Revised John Burgon takes several of what have now become hallmarks of the Aleph/B "mutilations" such as 1 Timothy 3:16 and argues against their theories from other witness sources.

So all non-TR Greek texts which are not duplicates of the W&H "Revised-Revision" which accept and use their hypothesis and additionally lean on Aleph/B will no doubt be very closely aligned with it (WH).

I knew it would come down to this issue which is ironic seeing that the KJVO could care less about any Greek Text (or so they say when it is convenient). After all the English corrects the Greek! This "fact" is arrived at by using some amazing logic, George Orwell would be proud of them.

The NASB (IMO) is probably the best of the MVs which tries to find the most faithful rendition of the text, too bad there is not a Traditional Text edition. The NJKV is not up to its par (IMO).

HankD

Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, when are you going to actually answer my question found here?: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001132;p=10

Click to expand...

You quoted, "Scriptural facts: God promised to preserve His Word for His people. I believe from the Bible that God preserved His Word. The reason He gave and preserved His Word."

If you believe God preserve His Word, then Psalms 12:6-7 refer to that God preserved His Word in Hebrew & Greek apographs.

If you do not believe it, then Psalms 12:6-7 would refer to the people.

You know askjo, I agree that Psalm 12:6-7 is speaking about the Words of God and their preservation, but it is so devisive that I stay away from it (this time excepted).

Think about this : God gives us His written word which expresses His thoughts. Originally He gave it in Hebrew and Greek which were understood when given. Later His word needed to be translated.

Tell me what in the world would a modern English speaker make of the following KJV Scipture?

KJV 2 Corinthians 6
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

Here it is TRANSLATED :

NIV 2 Corinthians 6
11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.

Which set of words conveys the warmth of His thoughts and has preserved them in a better manner for the 21st century English speaking person?

HankD

Originally posted by Askjo:
I learned that all modern versions current texts are 5 Greek Critical Texts. Ok, let us look at what 5 Greek Critical texts are?

1. Eclectic Texts
2. United Bible Societies text
3. Nestle-Aland Text
4. Nestle Text
5. Westcott/Hort Text

All 4 (1 to 4) CTs went back to W/H text.

Click to expand...

I am not sure where you learned that, but it is not entirely accurate.

All the Greek texts are eclectic to a greater or lesser extent. The United Bible Societies text is actually 4 texts, UBS 1, 2, 3, and 4. The 2nd edition has only minor changes from the 1st edition. The 3rd edition changed about 500 readings, mostly suggested by Kurt Aland. The 4th edition's text is identical to the 3rd edition, the only changes being in the textual apparatus.

The Nestle text was first published in 1898. Eberhard Nestle created his first text (1898) by comparing Tischendorf (1869), Westcott and Hort (1881), and Weymouth (1892), and placing in his text whichever reading was followed by two of the three. In 1901 (3rd edition) he replaced Weymouth with Weiss (1894). Nestle's son, Erwin, took over his father's work in 1914. The Nestle text has undergone several revisions and is now in its 27th edition. It was the basis of the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. Kurt Aland worked for Nestle beginning in 1952, and when he took over he replaced the Nestle text with the UBS which he helped to create along with Black, Metzger, and Wikren.

The Westcott and Hort text of 1881 was based largely on the work of Johann Jacob Griesbach and Karl Lachmann. Westcott and Hort set aside the Latin witnesses along with the later Greek manuscripts and elevated Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus to a new hight, labeling them "Neutral," and very nearly succeeded in identifying them with the original manuscripts.

Add to that the 30 odd Greek texts which come under the heading "Textus Receptus" and you will begin to see the Greek text issue is not quite so cut and dried as you seem to think.

Do all of the Critical texts go back to Westcott and Hort. Well, yes and no. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort certainly contributed the lion's share of readings to the later Critical Texts, and the editors of the later texts certainly accepted the Textual Critical theory and rules as set forth by Westcott and Hort, but none of the modern Critical texts follows Westcott and Hort slavishly. In fact the later Critical texts contain many more Byzantine (the basis for the Textus Receptus) readings than the text of Westcott and Hort.

A basic fact ignored by KJVOs is that among the TR, the mss from which it was made, and the KJV, no two of them match.

Originally posted by Askjo:
If you believe God preserve His Word, then Psalms 12:6-7 refer to that God preserved His Word in Hebrew & Greek apographs.

If you do not believe it, then Psalms 12:6-7 would refer to the people.

Click to expand...

YOu are not thinking straight. Think about what you just said. It is ridiculous. You can believe in preservation without believing that Psa 12:6-7 talks about it. I believe in the doctrine of the preservation of God's word. I believe Psa 12:6-7 talks about people.

Why do you persist in this foolishness??

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
I learned that all modern versions current texts are 5 Greek Critical Texts.

Click to expand...

99.999% of your problem is that you "learned" from people who are either ignorant or more likely intentional deceivers.
</font>[/QUOTE]No plm! I learned from the Holy Spirit teaching me to find the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]If a spirit told you that all "modern versions texts are 5 Greek Critical Texts" then you need to do a much better job of testing the spirits.

Originally posted by Askjo:

Alright, let us look at one verse for example.

Mark 11:10 (KJV) "in the name of the Lord"

NASB omitted
Nestle Text omitted
W/H text omitted

All of them agreed each other and watered down the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should consider *all* the evidence before making your claims.

(1) The phrase "in the name of the Lord" in Mk. 11:10 is *absent* from the Greek uncials Aleph, B, C, D, L, U, W, Delta, Theta; from the Greek minuscules 1, 13, 28, 69, 115, 124, 209, 238, 346, 565, 569, 579; from the Greek lectionaries 20 and 48; from the oldest representatives of the Old Latin (q being the sole exception), the Coptic, and the Syriac versions. In other words, the most ancient Greek (Aleph and B, 4th C.), Latin (k, 4th C.), Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts -- manuscripts of great antiquity from various parts of the ancient world -- did *not* have the phrase.

(2) The phrase is *absent* from representatives of all major textual groupings: Alexandrian (Aleph, B), Western (D, Old Latin), Byzantine (U) and Caesarean (Theta).

(3) The phrase IS found in Greek uncials A, E, G, H, K, M, N, S, Y, Gamma, Pi, and Omega. These are exclusively Byzantine and with the exception of A (5th C.) and N (6th C.) date from the 8th C. or later.

(4) The phrase is also found in the preceding verse (Mk. 11:9) as well as parallel passage in Mt. 21:9, both of which are undisputed (i.e., all Greek copies agree about the presence of the words).

(5) Matthew's Gospel was the most frequently used and quoted Gospel in the earliest centuries of the Church, while Mark's Gospel was the least frequently used and quoted. The overall pattern of textual variants in Mark's Gospel shows frequent scribal harmonization to the better-known text of Matthew.

(6) Scribes were also prone to harmonize passages in the immediate context, and the phrase "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" is found in all Greek copies in Mk. 11:9, the verse immediately preceding Mk. 11:10.

Conclusion: The words "in the name of the Lord" in Mk. 11:10, which lack early and widespread attestation, were later added to the text of Mark by Byzantine scribes who harmonized it to the more familiar passage in Mt. 21:9 and/or the use of the exact same phrase in Mk. 11:9.

So the evidence suggests that the W/H, Nestle, and NASB text did not "omit," but rather, that the TR and KJV added.

As for the claim that these texts were "watering down the doctrine of Jesus Christ," I have two questions. First, if the people behind these texts really *were* interested in "watering down the doctrine of Jesus Christ," why did they leave the words "in the name of the Lord" in both Mk. 11:9 and Mt. 21:9? Secondly, do the omissions in the KJV at Jn. 14:14, Ac. 16:6, Rom. 1:4, and Jude 25 mean that the KJV has "watered down the doctrine of Jesus Christ?"

Originally posted by Askjo:
You quoted, "Scriptural facts: God promised to preserve His Word for His people. I believe from the Bible that God preserved His Word. The reason He gave and preserved His Word."

If you believe God preserve His Word, then Psalms 12:6-7 refer to that God preserved His Word in Hebrew & Greek apographs.

If you do not believe it, then Psalms 12:6-7 would refer to the people.

Click to expand...

Would you mind restating this? I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.