Best majority text version?

[Jkdbuck76]

Sorry. I got my versions messed up. I MEANT to say MEV. It is a TR translation. They botched Isaiah 58. My bad.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

[franklinmonroe]

Sorry. I got my versions messed up. I MEANT to say MEV. It is a TR translation. They botched Isaiah 58. My bad.

Correct, the MEV is a TR-based translation (not MT-based).

At first I didn't see a problem with BibleGateway's online texts. I did find the word "reward" in both the MEV and KJV at Isaiah 58:8 (MEV above the KJV)--

Then your light shall break forth as the morning,
and your healing shall spring forth quickly,
and your righteousness shall go before you;
the glory of the Lord shall be your reward.

Then shall thy light break forth as the morning,
and thine health shall spring forth speedily:
and thy righteousness shall go before thee;
the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward.​

Notice the strong similarity. In the first line of this poetry we read a slight word order difference and "your" in the MEV rather than the KJV's "thy". In the second line we see "healing" in the Mev instead of "health" and "quickly for the KJV's "speedily". In the third and fourth lines we find two more instances of "your" for "thy". But notice that the MEV even maintains the word "shall" (when many modern versions would substitute "will").

I checked my primary print KJV (a 1984 AMG Hebrew-Greek Key Study Edition) which also has "reward" at Isaiah 58:8. But I found "rereward" on the Blueletter Bible site's KJV text. So, the English in question is not "rear ward" but rather the archaic word "rereward" (which can mean "rear guard"). It seems that such versions as the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, Darby, NET, and HCSB all have "rear guard" here. WEB and Webster have "rearward". Young's and Douay-Rheims has "gather thee" (another possible meaning of the Hebrew word). It is unclear presently how several diverse English editions (the MEV, and at least two sources of the KJV) could all have the same 'mistake'. I have noticed that some written commentaries (Gill and JFB) make referrence to "reward" also.

The comment by the reviewer occurs at about 22:00 minutes. Here is the video link--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dgb-Ar6IIk

 

[Van]

Yes, the idea that the glory of the Lord is our rearguard should not be bungled. Another way to look at this is Jesus has our back. And finally, with the "Light" at our back, the shadows before us are of no consequence, but actually foretell we are protected by the glory of the Lord. Isaiah 58:8

 

[Yeshua1]

The NKJV is not, strictly speaking, a Majority Text version because it follows the KJV/TR.

The English Majority Text Version (translated by Phil Esposito) is based on the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text. It's at http://www.majoritytext.com/.

Wilbur Pickering's translation is at http://www.prunch.org/new-translation-of-the-nt/.

Really would have been interesting would be if Holman had followed through with their new version being based on MT, but when its editor behind project passed, switched to based upon the CT!

 

[Logos1560]

I checked my primary print KJV (a 1984 AMG Hebrew-Greek Key Study Edition) which also has "reward" at Isaiah 58:8. But I found "rereward" on the Blueletter Bible site's KJV text. So, the English in question is not "rear ward" but rather the archaic word "rereward" (which can mean "rear guard").

Here is the list of KJV editions and their spellings for another verse that has the same word. Some KJV editions as early as the 1700's use "rearward" instead of rereward.

Joshua 6:9
rere-ward (1675, 1679, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1729, 1747, 1754, 1755, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1783, 1788, 1804 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1677, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1773, 1778 Cambridge] {1672, 1705, 1706, 1711, 1723, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1795 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1715, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1743 Dublin) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1804, 1808 MH) (1809, 1810, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1810 Scott) (1816, 1836, 1848 Hartford) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851 ABS) (1832 Wilbur) (1836 Stebbing) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1876 Harding) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1842 Bernard)

reareward {1631 London}
rear-ward (1777 Fortescu) (1790 Bolton) (1835 Scott)
rearward (1968 Oxford) [2005, 2011 Cambridge, CSTE] (1976 London} (1784 Piguent) (1811 Hewlett) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Boston) (1818 Holbrook) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1832 Scott) (1835 Towar) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1854 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1945 World) (1948 WSE) (1965, 1968 Royal) (1966 SC) (1972 NMRB) (GPB) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (1983, 1984, 1994, 2010 ZOND) (1984, 1991 AMG) (1987, 1988 IBS) (LASB) (KJRLB) (1996 ELKJV) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (EB) (LPB) (2006 PENG) (ASB) (2012 Biblica) (2013 HMB)

rereward (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Exactly! So if MEV was translating from Hebrew with a committee, they'd have caught that. OR, the people who printed it messed it up. Bro. Van, I like what you said up there.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

The KJV was a revision of the Bishops Bible which pretty consistently translates it as "gathered" or something similar with the exception of 1 Samuel 29:2 where they translate it as "behinde" and the verse in question, where "embrace" is used.

 

[Van]

The best majority text is the World English Bible.

What I said: Yes, the idea that the glory of the Lord is our rearguard should not be bungled. Another way to look at this is Jesus has our back. And finally, with the "Light" at our back, the shadows before us are of no consequence, but actually foretell we are protected by the glory of the Lord. Isaiah 58:8

 

[franklinmonroe]

The KJV was a revision of the Bishops Bible which pretty consistently translates it as "gathered" or something similar with the exception of 1 Samuel 29:2 where they translate it as "behinde" and the verse in question, where "embrace" is used.

Indeed, here is Isaiah 58:8 in some early English translations --

Thanne thi liyt schal breke out as the morewtid, and thin helthe schal rise ful soone; and thi riytfulnesse schal go bifore thi face, and the glorie of the Lord schal gadere thee.
(1395 Wycliff)

Then shal thy light breake forth as ye mornynge, and thy health florish right shortly: thy rightuousnesse shal go before the, and ye glory of the LORDE shal embrace the.
(1535 Coverdale)

Then shall thy lyght breake forth as the mornyng, & thy health floryshe ryght shortly: thy righteousnesse shall go before the, and the glory of the Lorde shall embrace the.
(1540 Great)

Then shall thy lighte breake forthe as the morninge, and thy healthe floryshe ryghte shortlie: thy righteousnesse shall go before the, and the glorye of the Lorde shall embrace the.
(1549 Matthews)

Then shall thy light breake foorth as the morning, and thy health florishe right shortly: righteousnesse shall go before thee, and the glory of the Lorde shall embrace thee.
(1568 Bishops' Bible)

Then shall thy light breake foorth as the morning, and thine health shal grow speedily: thy righteousnes shall goe before thee, and the glorie of the Lord shall embrace thee.
(1587 Geneva)​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

NLT: "Christ was revealed in a human body." Not one shred of manuscript evidence to support "Christ" (Χριστὸς).

It can be no one else but Christ.

You may think that, and you may be right, but first of all the text doesn't say 'Christ' but either 'God' or 'who.' Secondly J.W.s love the C.T. version of this verse. It supports their theology wonderfully. They are very happy with 'Christ' because to them Christ is not God.
Are you aware that there was a Unitarian on the committee that produced the Revised Version? Dr. G. Vance Smith was minister of St. Saviours Unitarian Chapel in York, and this is what he wrote about the revision of 1 Tim. 3:16.

"The old reading has been pronounced untenable by the revisers as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the N.T. ..........It is another example of the facility with which the ancient copyists could introduce the word 'God' into their manuscripts[ a reading which was the natural result growing tendency in early Christian times to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as ‘God manifested in the flesh’.”

First of all, why Oh why were open, avowed heretics allowed to be on the committee of the Revision? Secondly, how does it feel to be allied with Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses in your textual theories?
Thirdly, it has been shown that the traditional rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16 was alluded to in the very early 2nd Century by Ignatius of Antioch; does that not give you pause for thought?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And in 1 Timothy 3:16 doesn't sarx mean body in that context?

The NLT has "revealed in a human body.

Weymouth has :"appeared in human form."

Both convey the very same thing as "flesh" does.

There is a Greek word that means 'body.' That word is soma. If the Holy Spirit had wanted to say 'body' He would have used that word. He didn't; He used sarx. Why do translators think they are wiser than God? The word sarx is there to confound the early heretics who claimed that Christ did not have a flesh-and-blood body but a 'spiritual' body and therefore did not really suffer for us in the flesh.

To use 'body' instead of 'flesh' to translate sarx is therefore a most egregious error.
Why can't translators simply and humbly translate what's there instead of trying to be clever?

 

[Rippon]

There is a Greek word that means 'body.' That word is soma. If the Holy Spirit had wanted to say 'body' He would have used that word. He didn't; He used sarx.

Greek is not English. The Holy Spirit did not use the words body or flesh.

Sarx and soma mean just about the same thing --the physical body. In Ephesians 5:29 it says that no one has ever hated their own body [sarx]but one feeds and cares for it as Christ does for the church --for we are members of his body.[sarx]

Why do translators think they are wiser than God?

That is a bad thing to say of God-honoring Bible translators.

The word sarx is there to confound the early heretics who claimed that Christ did not have a flesh-and-blood body but a 'spiritual' body and therefore did not really suffer for us in the flesh.

Your argument aids me --not you. You just said "flesh-and blood body" not a "spiritual body." If you are so all-fired against the use of the word body --why did you use it in the first place?

To use 'body' instead of 'flesh' to translate sarx is therefore a most egregious error.

What is perplexing is your scorn of the rendering -body- as if it is evil. What doctrine has been overturned by its use?

 

[TCassidy]

LOL! ROFLOL! Rippon uses a poor translation to support his poor translation! And by so doing once again demonstrates his abysmal ignorance of the Greek language and the topic at hand.

Ephesians 5:29 (KJV) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Ephesians 5:29 (ASV) for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church;

Ephesians 5:29 (RV) for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church;

Ephesians 5:29 (TLV) For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it—just as Messiah also does His community,

Ephesians 5:29 (WEB) For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly;

Ephesians 5:29 (ESV) For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,

Ephesians 5:29 (NKJV) For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Church is the body of Christ, but it is not the flesh of Christ. The two words are not interchangeable.

 

[Rippon]

The Church is the body of Christ, but it is not the flesh of Christ. The two words are not interchangeable.

Allow me to clarify. I mean that soma and sarx mean the same thing in certain contexts.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding Ephesians 5:29, the following translations have sarx rendered as body:
CEB, GWT, ISV, Phillips, NCV, NET, NRSV and NLT

 

[Yeshua1]

I thought this comment on the website was good.

A good quick test of whether you have a good Bible is to look at 1 Timothy 3:16. If it reads God was manifest in the flesh, then you very probably have a good translation based on the Majority or Received text. If it reads He was manifest in the flesh, then your translation is not based on the Majority or Received Text. If it reads e.g. Christ came in a body, then it is not a translation of any manuscript at all, and is just the result of some-one fooling around on holy ground. Without God was manifest in the flesh, the Christian has been robbed of a rare and precious statement of perhaps the most tremendous truth in the Bible, that his Saviour Who walked this earth as a man and gave His life for him, is in fact a manifestation of God!

Except the version could still have Jesus as Being God in the flesh in either rendering though, as one would need to look at just what the "He" was said to be!

 

[Yeshua1]

You may think that, and you may be right, but first of all the text doesn't say 'Christ' but either 'God' or 'who.' Secondly J.W.s love the C.T. version of this verse. It supports their theology wonderfully. They are very happy with 'Christ' because to them Christ is not God.
Are you aware that there was a Unitarian on the committee that produced the Revised Version? Dr. G. Vance Smith was minister of St. Saviours Unitarian Chapel in York, and this is what he wrote about the revision of 1 Tim. 3:16.

First of all, why Oh why were open, avowed heretics allowed to be on the committee of the Revision? Secondly, how does it feel to be allied with Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses in your textual theories?
Thirdly, it has been shown that the traditional rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16 was alluded to in the very early 2nd Century by Ignatius of Antioch; does that not give you pause for thought?

They also love to use the KJV verses that seem to support that God and jesus are not same, as jesus is not Loed/Saviour, such as when the Kjv seems to be stating that God and Jesus are both being mentioned, but modern versions have it referring to jesus as being both God and saviour!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your argument aids me --not you. You just said "flesh-and-blood body" not a "spiritual body." If you are so all-fired against the use of the word body --why did you use it in the first place?

I am "fired up" against the translation of sarx as 'body' when it means 'flesh.' As I have said, there was an early heresy called docetism, which taught that our Lord only seemed to have a body of flesh and blood; that His body was in fact a spiritual one. Thus Paul and John especially (cf. also Luke 24:39) concentrated on the physicality of His body. Hence they did not use soma, but sarx.

To use 'body' instead of 'flesh' to translate sarx is therefore a most egregious error.

What is perplexing is your scorn of the rendering -body- as if it is evil. What doctrine has been overturned by its use?

'Evil' is your word, not mine. But it causes me deep anger when translators play fast and loose with the word of God. I think the greatest need in a Bible translator is humility.
As for doctrine- well, I already explained about Docetism. If you think that ancient heresies can't reappear, you are very much mistaken. But that really isn't the point. The point is that translators should not think that they can decide for themselves how to translate words. They need to translate the words the Holy Spirit has given them accurately and humbly, and sarx means 'flesh.'

 

[Yeshua1]

I am "fired up" against the translation of sarx as 'body' when it means 'flesh.' As I have said, there was an early heresy called docetism, which taught that our Lord only seemed to have a body of flesh and blood; that His body was in fact a spiritual one. Thus Paul and John especially (cf. also Luke 24:39) concentrated on the physicality of His body. Hence they did not use soma, but sarx.



'Evil' is your word, not mine. But it causes me deep anger when translators play fast and loose with the word of God. I think the greatest need in a Bible translator is humility.
As for doctrine- well, I already explained about Docetism. If you think that ancient heresies can't reappear, you are very much mistaken. But that really isn't the point. The point is that translators should not think that they can decide for themselves how to translate words. They need to translate the words the Holy Spirit has given them accurately and humbly, and sarx means 'flesh.'

Didn't the 2011 revision of the Niv address this issue though?