A better English Bible.

[37818]

This word πραξαντων meaning "practiced" occurs only twice in the whole New Testament.
Acts of the Apostles 19:19.
Romans 9:11.

Acts of the Apostles 19:19, while many who practiced magical arts brought their books together and began burning them in front of everyone. When the value of the books was added up, the total came to fifty thousand silver coins.

Romans 9:11, though her sons were not yet born and practiced nothing good or evil, in order for the purpose of God's choice to stand (not because of works but because of him who calls),

 

[Silverhair]

John 3:17 is not do to a textual variant. But a change in the English language. Some readers prefer the older word usage.

What you seem to be missing is that the vast majority do not care about textual variant because they do not even know what it is and thus do not care.

They will ask why different words are used in different translations.

But you did not answer the question, which do you think is the better translation and why?

 

[37818]

What you seem to be missing is that the vast majority do not care about textual variant because they do not even know what it is and thus do not care.

They will ask why different words are used in different translations.

But you did not answer the question, which do you think is the better translation and why?

With a textual variant the other reading may simply not be true, not the word of God. Or correcting the wrong reading with the original reading.

 

[Silverhair]

With a textual variant the other reading may simply not be true, not the word of God. Or correcting the wrong reading with the original reading.

But again who is to decide which textual variant is the correct one. It will not be the person that just wants to read their bible and we know that various scholars weight the various manuscripts differently.

It seems you are looking for the ideal and you will not find it. I know from other threads you place a great deal of trust in one particular line of transmission. Other do not hold your view. So while your quest is admirable it is not achievable.

 

[Deacon]

The thread is titled A Better English Bible”.
But Textual Criticism is not the major focus when forming a translation. Granted, it is an early part of the translation process but it isn’t the prime focal point.
Generally early in the process of translation, a translation team will choose a certain Greek text and use that as its primary basis for translation (read the preface of any translation and it usually notes the base Greek text).
Then, should there be any deviation from that particular Greek text, a footnote would be created.

By focusing on textual criticism, you are attempting to create A Better GREEK text.

“…I indicated that textual difficulties are of minor importance and do not invalidate any doctrinal teaching of the church. The same must be said of translation difficulties. Even the worst translation contains the basic gospel; I note that even the translations of heretical groups are not able to keep the gospel out. The best translations are imperfect; but they are usually able to capture nearly all the meaning of the original, so that one can quote them, confident that one is quoting the autographic text. In most Scripture passages, there are no translation difficulties. When there is a problem in one passage, it is usually not difficult, by virtue of Scripture’s eloquent redundancy (chaps. 18, 33), to find another passage where the same subject matter exists without translation difficulty.
John M. Frame. The Doctrine of the Word of God. 2010.
​

Rob

 

[Conan]

The thread is titled A Better English Bible”.
But Textual Criticism is not the major focus when forming a translation. Granted, it is an early part of the translation process but it isn’t the prime focal point.
Generally early in the process of translation, a translation team will choose a certain Greek text and use that as its primary basis for translation (read the preface of any translation and it usually notes the base Greek text).
Then, should there be any deviation from that particular Greek text, a footnote would be created.

By focusing on textual criticism, you are attempting to create A Better GREEK text.

“…I indicated that textual difficulties are of minor importance and do not invalidate any doctrinal teaching of the church. The same must be said of translation difficulties. Even the worst translation contains the basic gospel; I note that even the translations of heretical groups are not able to keep the gospel out. The best translations are imperfect; but they are usually able to capture nearly all the meaning of the original, so that one can quote them, confident that one is quoting the autographic text. In most Scripture passages, there are no translation difficulties. When there is a problem in one passage, it is usually not difficult, by virtue of Scripture’s eloquent redundancy (chaps. 18, 33), to find another passage where the same subject matter exists without translation difficulty.
John M. Frame. The Doctrine of the Word of God. 2010.
​

Rob

Theoretically you have a better Greek Text you have a better translation. Had the NASB used a Byzantine Greek Text it could be a better translation in theory. It is disappointing to see a great translation with an inferior Greek Text.

 

[Silverhair]

Theoretically you have a better Greek Text you have a better translation. Had the NASB used a Byzantine Greek Text it could be a better translation in theory. It is disappointing to see a great translation with an inferior Greek Text.

You have just expressed your opinion based on how you weight the text. And there in lays the problem, who decides what is the best translation or the best Greek text to base a translation upon?

 

[Conan]

You have just expressed your opinion based on how you weight the text. And there in lays the problem, who decides what is the best translation or the best Greek text to base a translation upon?

People that are learned. People who have studied for an extended time and who have read all sides and come to their own conclusions, and not somebody else's. Of course God's guidance in everything is the most important.

 

[Deacon]

Theoretically you have a better Greek Text you have a better translation. Had the NASB used a Byzantine Greek Text it could be a better translation in theory. It is disappointing to see a great translation with an inferior Greek Text.

Don't think that by developing a new Byzantine Greek Text you solve all your text critical problems.
The idea of developing a select Byzantine Greek Text has already been done... many times!

Common Greek Texts within the Byzantine text type include:

• Textus Receptus (used in the translation of the KJV) is an example of a composite Byzantine Greek text. There are numerous forms of a Textus Receipts (see "Which Textus Receptus?", by Mark Ward [link])
• The Majority Greek text (two modern examples are Pierpont/Robinson's and Hodges/Farstad)
• And a more recent text developed by Wilbur Pickering from Family 35 (~11th century) that some on the BB have latched onto.

Each one of these are coalitions of various individual Byzantine manuscripts (a single text formed by coalescing separate, distinct manuscripts).

Rob

 

[Silverhair]

People that are learned. People who have studied for an extended time and who have read all sides and come to their own conclusions, and not somebody else's. Of course God's guidance in everything is the most important.

And yet we have disagreements among scholars as to which is the correct translation. As you said these are people who have studied for an extended time and who have read all sides and come to their own conclusions.

They is no ideal translation but we do have good translations that we can trust.

God has preserved His word so that one can read it and come to trust in Him for their salvation.

 

[37818]

Do we really agree on the 27 books of the New Testament? So why the on going non-common consensus identifying correct variants?
Considering Jesus' words to the non-believers, in John 8:47, He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

 

[Deacon]

Do we really agree on the 27 books of the New Testament? So why the on going non-common consensus identifying correct variants?
Considering Jesus' words to the non-believers, in John 8:47, He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Please clarify what you are saying when you quote John 8:47?

Do you think the verse means…

…that all believers should agree about what Scripture contains?​

Are you saying…

… all believers should be “of one accord” when it comes to choosing what word is appropriate in the Greek text?
​

Do you think that those that don’t agree (with you) are not really believers?

…because they don’t really hear God’s words (and you do)?​

Rob

 

[37818]

Please clarify what you are saying when you quote John 8:47?

I was explicit, "Jesus' words to the non-believers, . . ."

Do you think the verse means…
…that all believers should agree about what Scripture contains?

Believers will hear and believe what Jesus said.

 

[Silverhair]

I was explicit, "Jesus' words to the non-believers, . . ."


Believers will hear and believe what Jesus said.

Then logically if non-believers could not understand the word of God then no one could be saved as we are all non-believers before we trust the word of God.

But thankfully that is not what the verse means. Context shows us that Christ was speaking to Pharisees and other Jews and it was not that they could not understand what He said rather they would not accept what He said as we see form a prior verse Joh 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. and further Joh 8:45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

You asked "So why the on going non-common consensus identifying correct variants?" The answer should be obvious. Various scholars use various manuscripts which they conclude are the best at transmitting the original word of God. The Greek text, as you know, can be translated via various English words and what we have is what the various scholars see as the best rendition of the Greek into English.

We have the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NLT, NET, BSB, NRSV and the list could go on. Yes there are some terrible attempts at translation out there and they need to be called out as such.

You may disagree with the word choice, as is your right but do you have any verse or list of verses where someone reading them could be lead astray and thus not be saved or loose their salvation?

 

[37818]

.

Then logically if non-believers could not understand the word of God then no one could be saved as we are all non-believers before we trust the word of God.

But thankfully that is not what the verse means. Context shows us that Christ was speaking to Pharisees and other Jews and it was not that they could not understand what He said rather they would not accept what He said as we see form a prior verse Joh 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. and further Joh 8:45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

You asked "So why the on going non-common consensus identifying correct variants?" The answer should be obvious. Various scholars use various manuscripts which they conclude are the best at transmitting the original word of God. The Greek text, as you know, can be translated via various English words and what we have is what the various scholars see as the best rendition of the Greek into English.

We have the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NLT, NET, BSB, NRSV and the list could go on. Yes there are some terrible attempts at translation out there and they need to be called out as such.

You may disagree with the word choice, as is your right but do you have any verse or list of verses where someone reading them could be lead astray and thus not be saved or loose their salvation?

John 8:47 says> He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

John 20:31 says> But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

@Silverhair what is your point?

 

[Silverhair]

.


John 8:47 says> He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

John 20:31 says> But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

@Silverhair what is your point?

Did you not read the whole post? I made my point in the post. If you are unsure then read it again.

 

[37818]

.

Did you not read the whole post? I made my point in the post. If you are unsure then read it again.

You right off argued.

Then logically if non-believers could not understand the word of God then no one could be saved as we are all non-believers before we trust the word of God.

And you give an answer.

But thankfully that is not what the verse means. Context shows us that Christ was speaking to Pharisees and other Jews and it was not that they could not understand what He said rather they would not accept what He said as we see form a prior verse Joh 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. and further Joh 8:45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

Might one conclude the wrong variants are also of the devil?

 

[Deacon]

Might one conclude the wrong variants are also of the devil?

That would be a terribly poor and misleading conclusion.

Rob

 

[37818]

That would be a terribly poor, inaccurate, incorrect, and misleading conclusion.

Rob

A variant is either the corrected true reading or a errant false reading for some reason. Only if it was a deliberately changed, one might conclude it was of the devil. John 8:44-45 as the reason for the unbelief cited in John 8:47. My argument, we being Holy Spirit indwelt believers, we ought to be able to identify original textual readings.

 

[Deacon]

There are a few different kinds of textual variants.
They are categorized by their viability and meaningfulness.

By far the greatest type of variant is a spelling err.
Most of these are neither viable or meaningful.

VIABILITY - easily identifiable, do not effect meaning

EYAMPLE: speling errers adn punktuatiin ar ferquenttly overloaked adn arnt a vialbe varent.
​

MEANINGFUL - meaning a variant that changes the full intent of the passage.

​

One of the weaknesses that the Byzantine text form is often accused of is the addition of explanatory text (commentary).
The commentary is neither wrong or deceptive, but it would also not be original to the biblical text.

Rob

Note: I’m posting on Sunday morning. I’ve been housebound for the last month after tearing my Achilles tendon.

​