Col. 2:7 "overflowing in/with" what?

I presume the issue revolves around the inclusion or exclusion of EN AUTH (= KJV "therein"), which if absent *may* (but not necessarily) turn the emphasis to the person as opposed to the doctrine or the substance of faith itself.

The NA27 text brackets [EN AUTH], indicating the editors' uncertainty as to whether it belongs in the text or not. The Byzantine text has the words present.

If the shorter text were original, there would have been no reason to add the additional words, since the text would have made sufficient sense as it stood.

On the other hand, were the longer text original, it would be easy for a small number of related MSS (NA27 lists 14 out of ca. 600) or their common ancestral archetype to have omitted the passage by haplography, skipping from EN auth ^ EN eucaristia.

Thus, on balance, I would say that the longer reading has the most to commend it, and in this, both the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts tend to agree (the former albeit in brackets).

 

-- King James Version --
Colossians 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

Westcott and Hort, the deceitful doctors of the Greek New Testament text in the late 1800's, omitted the words "in" and "therein" in Colossians 2:7.

The reading of the KJV should be retained because it is properly translated from the right Greek text. The underlying Greek text is the issue here, and this is why there is so much debate concerning Bible versions.

If you believe God's promises to preserve His words, then stick to the KJV and the text which underlies it.

Those who are not convinced that God's words have been perfectly preserved intact are not exactly sure of which words to stand on. They have let loose of the anchor of the KJV and are tossed about upon the waves of modern English versions which are translated from different Greek words.

The Bible stands though the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands.

 

Sorry, Psalm, you have absolutely NO proof that one text is superior to another...You're GUESSING!

 

If they had no textual reason whatsoever then "deceitful" might have been an option.

But the reason for the missing English words (presumably) is because of the missing words in the alexandrian texts which they prefered.

They were wrong according to my textual standard but "deceitful", well only God knows that for sure if it is indeed the case.

HankD

 

Psalm 145 3 said:

They have let loose of the anchor of the KJV and are tossed about upon the waves of modern English versions which are translated from different Greek words.

 

HankD: If they had no textual reason whatsoever then "deceitful" might have been an option.

So, Hank, when the TNIV renders Jn 1:18 in the conflate form "the one and only Son, who is himself God" -- when the MSS read only "Son" or "God" but not both -- might there be some "deceit" involved?

 

Maybe, maybe not. Personally I think they (the TNIV translators) are collectively sincere in their belief that it should be translated that way.

HankD