Search results

I agree that it is one of those several modern critical editions I alluded to also have Bosor. However, my Marshall's interlinear displays an older Nestle Greek that actually has Beor.

Yes, that is essentially what the footnote states. Is that what a translation should do? I like the NET, and I am reading through it's NT now (I haven't gotten to 2 Peter, yet). BTW, the NET did not try to harmonize with the OT; it has "Bosor" in it's main text.

Easton's Bible Dictionary states under the listing BOSOR that it is "the Chaldee or Aramaic form of the name Beor, the father of Balaam".

James Moffatt (D.D. LL.D. D.Litt & Scottish translator) in his commentary on the General Epistles writes "Bosor was the name of a town in Gilead, which had no connexion with Balaam; it is a mistake for Beor, and the correction was made in some early texts". (pg.197-198)

καταλίποντες τὴν εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν ἐπλανήθησαν ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Βοσόρ ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν (TR) According to Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed, p.635) the reading Bosor in 2 Peter 2:15 is "strongly supported by almost all Greek manuscripts...

For a beginning student I like A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible by Robert Stein. For more advanced students I highly recommend Fee & Stuart's How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.

I agree, and that was the point behind my (mostly rhetorical) question. The NKJV is now on record as having examined this particular word in Revelation 6:11 and determined that they definitely intend the singular form now, as opposed to the plural form they previously had in their text.

Interesting. Why would they do that if in English the difference between "robes" and "robe" is insignificant?

It was merely a question: Did the NKJV follow the CT here? Perhaps not. But since virtually all (with a few possible exceptions) TR-based English translations have "robes" (plural) in contrast with virtually all CT-based Englsih translations having "robe" that if the NKJV wanted to keep...

I am reading through the Beta version in hardcopy now and liking it.

I agree, but that isn't the issue. The question is: Does the NKJV ever depart from the TR?

Statement from the NKJV Preface -- In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major...

While that was perhaps true for the AV1611, the NKJV does not enjoy that liberty. The NKJV was supposed to be produced from the same underlying text as the KJV which in modern terms would be identified as the Scrivener text only. Scrivener's 1894 Greek text for Revelation 6:11 below (matches the...

Interesting point if it could be shown that in Greek the plural form stolai could mean a single garment. The Greek word need not be strictly rendered "robes" in English (apparently introduced by the Geneva Bible), since it merely indicates loose outer garments -- And longe whyte garmentes...

1. Without outside authorities to the contrary, we have only the evidence before us that suggests that the NKJV followed the CT (even though I recognize that we may not be privileged to know the actual decisions that led the NKJV translators to this rendering). 2. If the NKJV follows the MT...

Amy, while I can appreciate your deduction, we certainly cannot allow our logic, our thoughts, or our presuppositions to be imposed upon the text. What makes "sense" to you may not make sense to some one else, or vice-versa. It says what it says. Nay, it says what God wants it to say. How do...

No, I don't think we can be certain of it then. What we CAN be certain of is the way the KJV text is presented today.

In my opinion, in some places where the case (of number) in the KJV text does not correspond to the underlying original language it is not a translational matter since the king's revisers seemed to have followed a formal (literal) translational method. One example (will not take this thread...

Not exactly right; the Holy Spirit is often described as a 'personality' but the Spirit is primarily, well, a spirit ("God is a Spirit" John 4:24). To the best of my knowledge, we cannot determine that spirits have gender (apparently angels may not have gender, Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25). You...

Not exactly right; I think you may have intended that the Greek noun pneuma (Strong's #4151) rendered "Spirit/spirit" in English is grammatically neuter. The Greek pronoun autos (Strong's #846) is empty of grammatical gender; however, it should reflect the physical gender of it's antecedent...