• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How Many Here Go for NASO?

Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79 said:
I have mentioned 5 verse I have issue with in the NIV 2011 before. The footnotes in the NIV read how I would translate. I will not throw the NIV2011 out over 5 verses. The NIV study Bible also teaches the correct translation and interpretation of the words in question. The vast majority of the NIV2011 is very well done. The NIV often gets treated as the while translation is awful. Which it is not. I find it to be a much better product than the NIV84.

The hypocrisy of the many who attack the NIV is seen in their silence or flat out promotion of the NLT. I have seen multiple, 6 to be exact, SBC pastors who have spoke ill of the NIV 2011, yet they use, promote or preach from the NLT.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The problem is that those "minor issues" with the 2011 Niv to many actually render it not suitable to be used, and that those same persons would still be using the 1984 Niv!
And the Niv 2011 is a better translation then the Nlt, but not quite as good as the CSB, if one wanted that "mediating" type of translation!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79 said:
*"while" is a typo....should be whole. Typing on cell phones....

The NIV2011 often gets treated as the "whole" translation is awful. Which is false. The vast majority of the translation is very well done and an improvement over the '84

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Too bad those glaring "problems" remain!
 
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
What are main differences between it and NA 28/UBS5?
Click to expand...
The biggest is book order... which is annoying at first. I have noticed several punctuation difference and the the THGNT will not use anything not found in a Greek manuscript before 500 AD. (I believe. My book by Dirk Jongkind is at the church right now). When the punction is different than the NA28, I usually perfer the THGNT

An example of the THGNT dependency on the Greek is found in 2 Peter 3:10 the NA28 reads "ἔργα ⸂οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται"(works will not be found). This reading is not found in a single greek manuscript. But Mink, who started the CBGM project, loved the Syriac manuscript tradition. I believe this has caused him to unjustifiably place this Syriac reading in the text. No other language version read like the NA28 does...other than the Syriac.

The THGNT reads ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται(works will be found).

The THGNT holds to traditional textual criticism methods and maybe a push back against CBGM. I am not against CBGM, but they did make an error here in 2 Peter in my opinion. How someone can adopt a read not found in any Greek manuscript is illogical. I have read their justification to the reading....I just don't buy it.

CBGM makes me excited and nervous all at the same time.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
McCree79 said:
the THGNT will not use anything not found in a Greek manuscript before 500 AD.
Click to expand...
It's a bit confusing when you duplicate negatives in the sentence. To state it positively :The THGNT will only make use of Greek manuscripts dated before 500 AD.

And that is a generally good idea. But what about minuscule 1739? Even though it is from the 10th century, it often agrees with P46. And the latter is dated around 200 AD. [see James R. Royce The Early Text Of Paul (and Hebrews. p.178 from the book The Early Text Of The New Testament by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger]
 
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
And that is a generally good idea. But what about minuscule 1739? Even though it is from the 10th century, it often agrees with P46. And the latter is dated around 200 AD. [see James R. Royce The Early Text Of Paul (and Hebrews. p.178 from the book The Early Text Of The New Testament by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger]
Click to expand...

They will use latter manuscripts in the apparatus and to make textual decisions as long as the reading is found in atleast 1 early manuscript.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79 said:
The biggest is book order... which is annoying at first. I have noticed several punctuation difference and the the THGNT will not use anything not found in a Greek manuscript before 500 AD. (I believe. My book by Dirk Jongkind is at the church right now). When the punction is different than the NA28, I usually perfer the THGNT

An example of the THGNT dependency on the Greek is found in 2 Peter 3:10 the NA28 reads "ἔργα ⸂οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται"(works will not be found). This reading is not found in a single greek manuscript. But Mink, who started the CBGM project, loved the Syriac manuscript tradition. I believe this has caused him to unjustifiably place this Syriac reading in the text. No other language version read like the NA28 does...other than the Syriac.

The THGNT reads ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται(works will be found).

The THGNT holds to traditional textual criticism methods and maybe a push back against CBGM. I am not against CBGM, but they did make an error here in 2 Peter in my opinion. How someone can adopt a read not found in any Greek manuscript is illogical. I have read their justification to the reading....I just don't buy it.

CBGM makes me excited and nervous all at the same time.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Are they then just using Bzt/MT readings?
 
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
And that is a generally good idea. But what about minuscule 1739? Even though it is from the 10th century, it often agrees with P46. And the latter is dated around 200 AD. [see James R. Royce The Early Text Of Paul (and Hebrews. p.178 from the book The Early Text Of The New Testament by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger]
Click to expand...

To answer your question more accurately. It does not look like 1739 is used.

This image is from Jongkind's book on the THGNT


2da812b764b785191c2991dfef144e8a.jpg


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
In other words, they are using an even more limited apparatus. A backwards leap instead of forwards.

Well I missed the non highlighted part, "; for the text itself we took many more manuscripts into account."

Thank God for that.
 
Last edited:
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
But the references that they cite to support their decisions seem to be good!
Click to expand...
Or rather limited. If they used more manuscripts to make the decision of what goes into the Text, but then show only the early partial evidence, they do not reveal the whole decision making process.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Conan said:
Or rather limited. If they used more manuscripts to make the decision of what goes into the Text, but then show only the early partial evidence, they do not reveal the whole decision making process.
Click to expand...
Maybe like what UBS text is, fo beused mainly by pastors/teacher, as not so much need of a big critical apparatus!
 
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Conan said:
In other words, they are using an even more limited apparatus. A backwards leap instead of forwards.

Well I missed the non highlighted part, "; for the text itself we took many more manuscripts into account."

Thank God for that.
Click to expand...
Yes....if the reading is found in the above it is in the apparatus and may or may not be included in the text. Other manuscripts support the readings...they are not the source of the reading in the text per se.

So Rippon's question of 1739 is....
1739 is not used to qualify the text as much as it may be used to support an earlier reading.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top