Thinkingstuff
Active Member
EdSutton said:Just wondered what version of Scripture you are reading??
I'm kinda' at a loss, here on this "type" bit, especially in Hebrews.
Here are the instances of the use of "type" and "antitype", respectively, in the NT, as I have found them, in the 21 English versions that are to be found on Bible Gateway, which "run the gamut" from the most 'rigid' (YLT, NASB, & ASV) to the most 'free' (MSG, CEV, & NLV.
WYC - (1382, 1388) = (0) & (0)
KJV (1611, but prob 1769 'Blaney' edition) = (0) & (0) - (The KJ21 of is identical to the KJV, here.)
YLT ( 1862) = (3) & (1)- (Rom. 5:14; I Cor.10:6, 11) & (I Pet. 3:21)
DARBY (1890) = (2) & (0) - (I Cor. 10:6, 11)
ASV (1901) = (0) & (0) - (This has been pretty easy, so far!)
AMP (1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987) - (4) & (0) - (Rom. 5:14; 10:4; Heb. 9:9, 24) (Although I tend to distrust versions that are a translation, paraaphrase, explanation and commentary all rolled into one, nevertheless Heb. 9:24 does render this in the 'text body,' so I can say "Phew!! I finally found one in Hebrews!)
NASB (1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995) = (2) & (0) - (Rom. 5:14; Heb. 11:19) ( And a second instance in Hebrews! I had been worried there, for a minute.)
NLV (1969) = (0) & (0)
WE ( 1969, 1971, 1996) = (0) & (0)
NIV & NIV-UK (1973, 1978, 1984) = (0) & (0)
NKJV (1982) = (1) & (1) - (Rom. 5:14) & (I Pet. 3:21)
MSG (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002) = (0) & (0)
CEV (1995) = (0) & (0)
NIRV (1996, 1998) = (0) & (0)
HCSB (1999, 2000, 2002, 2003) - (1) & (0) - (The NT reference here of Ac. 19:25 is irrelevant to this subject.)
NLT (1996, 2004) - (1) & (0) - (Eph. 4:31 is also irrelevant.)
TNIV (2001, 2005) - (0) & (0)
ESV (2001) = (1) & (0) - (Rom. 5:14)
NCV (2005) = (0) & (0)
With all respect, and I do even basically agree with you here, on a 'theology basis,' it is a bad stretch to claim it, meaning "the Bible," says what you are atttempting to make it say, here. More than half (12) of 21 versions never use either the words "type" or "antitype" anywhere in the NT. In fact, only the NKJV and YLT use the word "antitype" at all, one time each, in the same verse. That is only 9% of the versions. One cannot ever properly consider the OT, in this usage, IMO, since prior to a 'fulfillment,' there is no such thing as an "antitype." 57% of the versions never use the word "type" in any fashion, either, and all 21 versions collectively only use this word 4, count 'em, 4 times in Hebrews.
This is not exactly overwhelming support, IMO, for what you are claiming.
Ed
I'll try to get back to you on that. Maybe I was mistaken about Hebrews but I'll define what I'm speaking of better as I actually spend time looking for what I'm thinking about.