Does It REALLY matter Which Greek text translating From Into English?

[jbh28]

I wouldn't want to overstate the matter, but there are certain verses which, in the Critical Text, seem to be just plain wrong. For instance:-

Eph 3:14-15, NKJV. 'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

Eph 3:14-15, ESV. 'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father, from whom every family in heaven and earth is named.'

What is the name given to every follower of Christ, past and present? Why, Christian! The whole family in heaven and earth is named after Christ.

Both are referring to "Father" in the verse. "Of our Lord Jesus Christ" is referring to the Father. We know who the "Father" is. And of course if one quoted the passage, Christ's name is all throughout it.

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
(Ephesians 3:14-19 ESV)​

Matt 1:8, NKJV. 'Asa begot Jehoshaphet'

Matt 1:8, ESV. 'Asaph the father of Jehoshaphet.'

Check out 1Kings 22:41 etc to see which is correct.

There are two or three other examples that I could give. The NIV and NASB agree with the ESV. It does seem to me that the CT makes the Bible contradict itself in some places.

Steve

Probably just a different spelling.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Both are referring to "Father" in the verse. "Of our Lord Jesus Christ" is referring to the Father.

Yes, but whom is the whole family in heaven and earth named after? The ESV version can't be right. It's a scribal error.
[QUOTE="jbh28]Probably just a different spelling.
[/QUOTE]
More than probably a scribal error.

Steve

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Comparison of passages on the deity of Christ

Ref-------- l NIV -----l NASB -----l KJV l-----------NKJV
John 1:1 -- clear ---- clear--- ---- clear------------clear
John 1:18 ---clear ---- clear -- --absent-----------absent
John 20:28 -- clear ---- clear --- --clear------------clear
Acts 20:28 -- clear --- clear --- ---clear----------- clear
Romans 9:5 -- clear --- ambiguous ---ambiguous----clear
Phil.2:5,6 -- clearest--- clear ------- clear----------clear
Col.1:15-17 -- clear --- clear ------- clear----------clear
Col. 2:9 -- clear ------- clear -------- ambiguous(?)--clear
1 Tim.3;16 -- absent --- absent ------ clear--------clear
Titus 2:13 -- clear------ clear -- -----ambiguous----clear
Heb.1:8 -- clear ----- ---clear ---------- clear------clear
2 Pe.1:1 -- clear -------- clear ---------ambiguous--clear
Micah 5:2 poor--------clear------------clear------clear

And the winner is........yes! It's the NKJV!

BTW, the possibility of the C.T reading of John 1:18 being correct is very small indeed.

Steve

 

[Rippon]

Steve,I'll address 1 Tim.3:16 and John 1:18 at a later time. I have time constraints.

You indicated that you consider the NIV Micah 5:2 rendering as "poor" as it concerns the Deity of Christ.

Here it is:

"But you,Bethleham Ephrathah,though you are small among the clans of Judah,out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,whose origins are from of old,from ancient times."

I suppose you disagree with the wording of "from of old,from ancient times." Yet the Hebrew according to NET notes says :"from the past,from the days of antiquity."

You'd rather have it clearly stated as "from eternity" or something like that. But will you agree that the NIV is being faithful to the original in this case?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't. My understanding is that the Hebrew word Olam means literally 'Days of eternity.' I think that is the Darby translation. 'Days of ages' may be a possible rendering, but 'everlasting' seems to me to be a very good translation.

The NIV translates olam as 'everlasting' in a variety of places (eg Isaiah 61:8). Do you really want to lose the everlasting covenant?

Steve

 

[Rippon]

I don't. My understanding is that the Hebrew word Olam means literally 'Days of eternity.' I think that is the Darby translation. 'Days of ages' may be a possible rendering, but 'everlasting' seems to me to be a very good translation.

The NIV translates olam as 'everlasting' in a variety of places (eg Isaiah 61:8). Do you really want to lose the everlasting covenant?

Steve

Steve,you have said that the NKJ is your favorite translation. Well, it has translated 'olam' in ways other then everlasting or eternal.

Gen. 6:4 : --- of old
Deut. 32:7 --- days of old
Joshua 24:2 -- old times
1 Sam. 27:8 -- from of old
Job 22:15 ---- the old way
Ps. 77:5 ----- the days of old,The years of ancient times
Mal. 3:4 ------ As in the days of old,as is former years.

Do you object to the way the NKJ rendered olam in these places?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have said that 'days of ages' may be an acceptable translation. 'Days of old' is similar. It is the context that will determine the right translation. In Deut 32:7, 'Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations,', clearly 'days of eternity' or something similar will not fit. However, when you are considering the origin of the Lord Jesus Christ in MIcah 5:2, in the light of John 1:1, 'everlasting' or 'eternity' is the only proper translation.

I also dislike the 'ancient doors' of Psalm 24:7, 9 in the NIV. These are the gates of heaven and they are everlasting.

BTW, here are a few other verses in which the KJV and NKJV have a better testimony to Christ than the NIV.

Rom 14:10b, 12.
Luke 2:33
Col 1:14
Rom 1:14

In Mark 1:2-3, there is another contradiction in the CT. A quotation from Malachi is ascribed to Isaiah.

Steve

 

[Rippon]

In Mark 1:2-3, there is another contradiction in the CT. A quotation from Malachi is ascribed to Isaiah.

Steve

From Comfort's New Testament Text And Translation Commentary:

Various scribes,aware that Mark was citing more than one prophet in the following verses (1:2-3),changed "Isaiah the prophet"to "the prophets"(so TR and KJV). In Mark 1:2 Mark quoted first from Exod 23:20 (LXX) and then from Mal 3:1 (Hebrew text),and in 1:3 he quoted Isa 40:3 (LXX) --or perhaps Mark was using an early Jewish collection of texts relating to the Messiah (Cole 1961,57). Whatever his source,Mark attributed the text to Isaiah only. It may be that he was more familiar with Isaiah,or that he thought Isaiah's name was the one which his readers most often associated with prophecies about the Messiah. The quote from Malachi speaks of a messenger who would prepare the way for the Messiah. Both quotes refer specifically to verses 4-8. All modern versions follow the superior reading. (p.93)

 

[Rippon]

BTW, here are a few other verses in which the KJV and NKJV have a better testimony to Christ than the NIV.

Rom 1:14

I think you made a mistake here Steve.

This is from the KJV :

I am debtor both to the Greeks,and to the Barbarians;both to the wise,and to the unwise.

This is from the NIV :

I am bound both to Greeks and non-Greeks,both to the wise and the foolish.


There is no substantial difference and I don't see where there is any testimony to Christ as such in either rendering.

 

[Rippon]

BTW, here are a few other verses in which the KJV and NKJV have a better testimony to Christ than the NIV.

Rom 14:10b, 12.

From the KJV: for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

From the NIV: For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

According to Comfort's book :The WH NU reading [found in nearly all English translations except the KJV and NKJ --Rip]has both early and diverse testimony. The change from "God" to "Christ" in TR was influenced by 14:9,where it speaks of Christ's death and resurrection. The natural follow-up would be to speak of Christ on the throne executing judgment. But Paul identifies "God" as the one who will execute the final judgment where,as it says in the next verse,"everyone will make confession to God." (pages 467,468)

Luke 2:33

KJV :Joseph and his mother
NIV : child's father and mother

The KJV and NKJ are alike. Comfort calls this "a calculated recension. The natural description of Joseph and Mary as father and mother of Jesus caused offense to various scribes and led to this alteration (Marshall 1978,1210in TR and KJV. (p.172)

Col 1:14

KJV : redemption through his blood
NIV : redemption

Comfort states:

Though Ephesians and Colossians were written at about the same time,the wording in each though similar in many instances,is rarely a verbatim replication of what is in the other epistle. The variant [TR --Rip] is an obvious scribal attempt to make Col 1:14 exactly the same as Eph 1:7, a parallel passage. It should be noted that this variant did not appear in a Greek manuscript until the ninth century. Nonetheless,TR has this reading,followed by KJV and NKJV. (p.622)

 

[Rippon]

I also dislike the 'ancient doors' of Psalm 24:7, 9 in the NIV. These are the gates of heaven and they are everlasting.

I looked at just a few other translations and they all have the same NIV wording of 'ancient doors.' : HCSB,NASB,NLT,ESV and GW.

 

[Rippon]

However, when you are considering the origin of the Lord Jesus Christ in MIcah 5:2, in the light of John 1:1, 'everlasting' or 'eternity' is the only proper translation.

GW : His origins go back to the distant past,to days long ago.

NLT : whose origins are from the distant past

ESV : from of old,from ancient days

 

[jbh28]

I have said that 'days of ages' may be an acceptable translation. 'Days of old' is similar. It is the context that will determine the right translation. In Deut 32:7, 'Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations,', clearly 'days of eternity' or something similar will not fit. However, when you are considering the origin of the Lord Jesus Christ in MIcah 5:2, in the light of John 1:1, 'everlasting' or 'eternity' is the only proper translation.

Not quite, while it's is a proper tranlsation, so is "from ancient days." It's an interpretative issue. You mentioned context and you are correct. Here is the ESV

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose coming forth is from of old,
from ancient days.
(Micah 5:2 ESV)

Is the "coming forth" speaking about his human origins(like the ESV/NIV) or divine origins (like the NASB/KJV/HCSB). That's anyone's call. But that's the difference. Obviously, the ESV/NIV translators are not denying the the eternity of Christ but believe it's speaking of human origins.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think you made a mistake here Steve.

Yep! Not for the first time or the last. :tonofbricks:

Try Rom 1:16.
NKJV. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.'

NIV. 'I am not ashamed of the gospel.'

Quite apart from the lack of reference to our Lord, why has the NIV left out 'for'? The Greek word, Gar is in every Greek text SFAIK.

Steve

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not quite, while it's is a proper tranlsation, so is "from ancient days." It's an interpretative issue. You mentioned context and you are correct. Here is the ESV

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose coming forth is from of old,
from ancient days.
(Micah 5:2 ESV)

Is the "coming forth" speaking about his human origins(like the ESV/NIV) or divine origins (like the NASB/KJV/HCSB). That's anyone's call. But that's the difference. Obviously, the ESV/NIV translators are not denying the the eternity of Christ but believe it's speaking of human origins.

If the reference were to our Lord's human origin, then it would be a nonsense because He hadn't come 'in the likeness of human flesh' in Micah's time. It clearly refers to to His begetting by the Father, which was in eternity. The JWs love these modern renderings of this verse.

Steve

 

[Martin Marprelate]

From Comfort's New Testament Text And Translation Commentary:

Various scribes,aware that Mark was citing more than one prophet in the following verses (1:2-3),changed "Isaiah the prophet"to "the prophets"(so TR and KJV). In Mark 1:2 Mark quoted first from Exod 23:20 (LXX) and then from Mal 3:1 (Hebrew text),and in 1:3 he quoted Isa 40:3 (LXX) --or perhaps Mark was using an early Jewish collection of texts relating to the Messiah (Cole 1961,57). Whatever his source,Mark attributed the text to Isaiah only. It may be that he was more familiar with Isaiah,or that he thought Isaiah's name was the one which his readers most often associated with prophecies about the Messiah. The quote from Malachi speaks of a messenger who would prepare the way for the Messiah. Both quotes refer specifically to verses 4-8. All modern versions follow the superior reading. (p.93)

Your constant citing of this man Comfort does not impress me. He has no idea whatsoever what 'various scribes' may or may not have done. Why can he not follow 95% of the extant manuscripts instead of effectively denying that Mark's Gospel is 'God-breathed' by suggesting that Mark did not know one OT prophet from another and got confused? On the evidence of your quotations, Comfort has a low view of Scripture and an over-fertile imagination. The Bible can not be surmised over as if it were some human book. It is the work of Almighty God and therefore cannot have errors in it.

BTW, there is no reason to suppose that Mark quoted from Exodus 23:20. The quotations are from Malachi first and then Isaiah. Malachi may have been referencing the Exodus passage, but that's another matter.

Steve

 

[Rippon]

Try Rom 1:16.
NKJV. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.'

NIV. 'I am not ashamed of the gospel.'

Quite apart from the lack of reference to our Lord, why has the NIV left out 'for'? The Greek word, Gar is in every Greek text SFAIK.

Steve

You may have a legitimate concern about the lack of 'Gar' in that verse.

But simce you mentioned about the "lack of reference to our Lord" I will address the issue by quoting from your favorite author. Yes,I'm speaking of Philip Comfort. In his book New Testament Text And Translation Commentary he says the following (with minor editing by Rip):

WH NU : the gospel
variant/TR : the gospel of Christ

The WH NU reading has vastly superior documentary support (both early and diverse) than that of the variant.The variant reading is a natural scribal expansion (perhaps influenced by 2:16 and 15:19) that found its way into the majority of late manuscripts,then into TR,followed by the KJV and NKJV.​

 

[Rippon]

Your constant citing of this man Comfort does not impress me.

I find him comforting.:thumbs:

He has no idea whatsoever what 'various scribes' may or may not have done.

Well he is in the business. He's a textual scholar.

Why can he not follow 95% of the extant manuscripts

Well 95% of manuscripts etc. are late and many have a lot of problem areas with harmonization,interpolations,pietistic embellishments and so forth.

On the evidence of your quotations, Comfort has a low view of Scripture and an over-fertile imagination. The Bible can not be surmised over as if it were some human book. It is the work of Almighty God and therefore cannot have errors in it.

Well,you are wrong Steve on a number of counts. First Philip W.Comfort is a solid,conservative scholar. I respect him very highly and other conservative Christians do as well. He makes the technical accessible to a layperson. He's diagnostic and fascinating to follow. Please dismiss your thoughts about him having a low view of Scripture. That was a low blow which is just not appropriate for you to say.

The Scriptures are 100% God-breathed. However,your embrace of the TR (or is it the Majority Text?) does not mean that those who don't share your textual convictions are Bible denying liberals. That's just not so. The TR and MT have too much in common with WH and NU for you to say such rash things.

 

[jonathan.borland]

From Comfort's New Testament Text And Translation Commentary:

Various scribes,aware that Mark was citing more than one prophet in the following verses (1:2-3),changed "Isaiah the prophet"to "the prophets"(so TR and KJV). In Mark 1:2 Mark quoted first from Exod 23:20 (LXX) and then from Mal 3:1 (Hebrew text),and in 1:3 he quoted Isa 40:3 (LXX) --or perhaps Mark was using an early Jewish collection of texts relating to the Messiah (Cole 1961,57). Whatever his source,Mark attributed the text to Isaiah only. It may be that he was more familiar with Isaiah,or that he thought Isaiah's name was the one which his readers most often associated with prophecies about the Messiah. The quote from Malachi speaks of a messenger who would prepare the way for the Messiah. Both quotes refer specifically to verses 4-8. All modern versions follow the superior reading. (p.93)

The Alexandrian manuscripts are repeatedly shown to represent a later text than that in the Byzantine consensus. For example, here in Mark 1:2 they harmonize to Matt 3:3, Luke 3:4, and John 1:23, which all have "Isaiah the prophet" and the words verbatim from the LXX of Isaiah. Yet whenever Mark quotes Isaiah (Mark 4:12; 11:17; 12:32) or alludes to him (about 10 times), he purposefully never identifies him, perhaps because the Gentiles wouldn't have known or even cared. Most scribes whose copies reflect the consensus of all known manuscripts didn't go about trying to correct the text, for if they had, they most certainly would have corrected Matt 27:9 to read "Zechariah" instead of the "Jeremiah" which Matthew actually wrote. The real kicker as regards Mark 1:2 is the scribal habit reflected by the first hand of Aleph (ℵ*) and others in Matt 13:35, where, in true Alexandrian fashion, the original reading "the prophet" could not be left alone, but had to be "improved" to "Isaiah the prophet," the humor lying in the fact that the quotation there didn't even come from Isaiah but from the Psalms. (They were wrong there just as they were wrong in saying the quotations were only from Isaiah the prophet in Mark 1:2.) The same thing happens in a minority of manuscripts in Matt 1:22: 2:5; 21:4; Acts 7:48, etc. Consequently, the minority can never be proven without doubt to be right, just as the consensus of all Greek manuscripts can never be proven without doubt to be corrupt. See my blog for a simple trial-test of every variation between the Byzantine text and the NA/UBS text in the first four chapters of Matthew. The Alexandrians are consistently inferior on internal grounds, and those manuscripts consistently inferior on internal grounds are morally certain to contain a later text than that in manuscripts consistently found to be superior on internal grounds. As for Mark 1:2, I recommend people stop reading the few regurgitated sentences in Comfort and consider reading Maurice A. Robinson, "Two Passages in Mark: A Critical Test for the Byzantine-Priority Hypothesis," Faith and Mission 13 (Fall 1996): 66–111, the first 20+ pages of which are devoted to the Mark 1:2 variation alone, the basic gist of which I have summed up in this post for your viewing pleasure and convenience.

 

[Rippon]

The Alexandrian manuscripts are repeatedly shown to represent a later text than that in the Byzantine consensus.

The advocates of the MT are decidedly a tiny minority compared with textual New Testament scholars who favor the WH and/or the NU.

The Alexandrians are consistently inferior on internal grounds,and contain a later text than that in manuscripts consistently found to be superior on internal grounds.

Well,you'll have to overturn a lot of work by numerous scholars who maintain no such thing.

I recommend people stop reading the few regurgitated sentences in Comfort

I am the one you are targeting. But regurgitated? Don't you quote some of the same authors numerous times?