Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Critical Text Versus Majority Text Translations
I wish you knew ,"The Bible", was The Words of God.
He Stiptulates the "Degree to which "TRANSLATIONS" may VERY from one another,
when The Lord, or others, are RECORDED in The NEW TESTAMENT,
as QUOTING The OLD TESTAMENT.
see: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/emwl/otnt_dodd.pdf
INSPIRATION Does not always run in the same 'Set of Tracks'.
Isiah vs. "esaias" the prophet, for example.
That gives The KJV The AUTHORITY, in that
"errors outside those parameters 'Old Testament to New Testament",
are insignificant and must be dismissed out of hand, and not as "errors".
The Septuagint was used by Jesus, in His Days on Earth,
as The AUTHORITATED WORD of GOD.
Others, with "TEXTURAL ERRORS and OMMISSIONS, of DEITY", especially.
As "our copies of The Septuagint", today,
have real errors we see as purposed, by The Devil, himself.
Errors are errors.
AUTHORITATIVE is AUTHORITATIVE >
from: https://faithalone.org/grace-in-foc...amination-of-seven-bible-translations-part-1/
"Of the seven, only the KJV and the NKJV
are translating what is often called the Majority Text (MT) of the NT.
For example, in 1 John 4:19 the KJV and NKJV include the word Him after “we love,”
but the other five translations do not.
The options are:
“We love Him because He first loved us”
versus “We love because He first loved us.”
The issue here is not the translation style.
The issue is the Greek manuscripts that they choose to translate."
The KJV and the NKJV translate the Textus Receptus (TR), which in most cases reflects the reading of the majority of outstanding Greek manuscripts. The other five translations translate what is called the Critical Text (CT). Though there are thousands of manuscripts for most books of the NT, the NIV, NASB, NET, HCSB, and ESV essentially translate three manuscripts (or only two if these three do not agree). In their view these three early manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) were nearly perfect manuscripts and thus when they agree, that is the correct reading even if a thousand or more manuscripts contradict that reading.
Here are a few examples of where this impacts Free Grace theology in some way:
John 6:47. “He who believes in Me has everlasting life” (MT) versus “He who believes has everlasting life” (CT).
2 John 8. “Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward” (MT) versus “ Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished , but that you may receive a full reward” (CT, though the NIV reads you in all three places).
Rev 22:19. “If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (MT, CR) versus “If anyone takes away…God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…” (TR). [This is a major example of the TR varying from the MT.]
John 7:53-8:11. The account of the woman caught in adultery is bracketed by the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and NET, indicating those versions all believe this testing of Jesus is not Scripture at all. The KJV and NKJV both consider this Scripture.
Mark 16:9-20. The ending of Mark’s Gospel is not considered Scripture in the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and the NET Bible. The KJV and NKJV consider this Scripture.
Can Faith Save Him? James 2:14
Note how our seven translations handle this verse, and especially pay attention to the different ways they translate the last part of it, i.e., the question dealing with the connection between faith and salvation/deliverance. I have italicized key differences.
KJV: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?”
NKJV: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”
NASB: “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him?”
NIV: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”
NET: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?”
HCSB: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can his faith save him?”
ESV “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?”
The NIV, NASB, NET, and ESV qualify faith the second time it appears in the verse with words which question the validity of the faith: “such faith,” “that faith,” “this kind of faith,” or “that faith,” respectively. The KJV and NKJV do not supply the qualifiers. Though the HCSB has a qualifier (“his faith”), there is nothing in the qualifier that questions the faith.
The Greek merely refers to “the faith” (hē pistis). The definite article is also used with pistis in the nominative case in vv 17, 20, 22, and 26. Yet in none of these other places do the NIV, NASB, NET, or ESV translate the expression as that faith, such faith, or this kind of faith. The translators are making an interpretive decision for the readers here. The KJV, NKJV, and the HCSB more accurately represent the Greek, with no pejorative description of the faith in question.
In addition, the NIV and NET also seem to be interpreting for the reader when it translates ean… legē tis (literally “if someone says”) as “if a man claims” or “if someone claims.” Yet this destroys the verbal tie here with v 12. There the same verb, legō, is used and clearly it refers to speaking, not claiming. Note even the NIV and NET translations of v 12: “Speak and act as those who are going to [or will] be judged by the [or a] law that gives freedom.”
The issue in Jas 1:21–2:26 is that we are to be doers and not merely speakers. We find the same thing in 1 John 3:16-18. The issue in v 12 is saying versus doing, not claiming versus doing. Claiming has a pejorative tone. Why wasn’t v 12 translated that way then: “Claim and act as those who are going to be judged…”? The reason is obvious. That isn’t the point in v 12. The other five translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV) correctly translated ean…legē tis.
The Free Grace person using the NIV or NET is doubly handicapped on this verse. The NASB and ESV users are also handicapped, but not quite as much. The KJV, NKJV, and HCSB are friendly to the Free Grace position in this verse since their translation does not try to interpret the verse for the readers.
I wish you knew ,"The Bible", was The Words of God.
He Stiptulates the "Degree to which "TRANSLATIONS" may VERY from one another,
when The Lord, or others, are RECORDED in The NEW TESTAMENT,
as QUOTING The OLD TESTAMENT.
see: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/emwl/otnt_dodd.pdf
INSPIRATION Does not always run in the same 'Set of Tracks'.
Isiah vs. "esaias" the prophet, for example.
That gives The KJV The AUTHORITY, in that
"errors outside those parameters 'Old Testament to New Testament",
are insignificant and must be dismissed out of hand, and not as "errors".
The Septuagint was used by Jesus, in His Days on Earth,
as The AUTHORITATED WORD of GOD.
Others, with "TEXTURAL ERRORS and OMMISSIONS, of DEITY", especially.
As "our copies of The Septuagint", today,
have real errors we see as purposed, by The Devil, himself.
Errors are errors.
AUTHORITATIVE is AUTHORITATIVE >
from: https://faithalone.org/grace-in-foc...amination-of-seven-bible-translations-part-1/
"Of the seven, only the KJV and the NKJV
are translating what is often called the Majority Text (MT) of the NT.
For example, in 1 John 4:19 the KJV and NKJV include the word Him after “we love,”
but the other five translations do not.
The options are:
“We love Him because He first loved us”
versus “We love because He first loved us.”
The issue here is not the translation style.
The issue is the Greek manuscripts that they choose to translate."
The KJV and the NKJV translate the Textus Receptus (TR), which in most cases reflects the reading of the majority of outstanding Greek manuscripts. The other five translations translate what is called the Critical Text (CT). Though there are thousands of manuscripts for most books of the NT, the NIV, NASB, NET, HCSB, and ESV essentially translate three manuscripts (or only two if these three do not agree). In their view these three early manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) were nearly perfect manuscripts and thus when they agree, that is the correct reading even if a thousand or more manuscripts contradict that reading.
Here are a few examples of where this impacts Free Grace theology in some way:
John 6:47. “He who believes in Me has everlasting life” (MT) versus “He who believes has everlasting life” (CT).
2 John 8. “Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward” (MT) versus “ Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished , but that you may receive a full reward” (CT, though the NIV reads you in all three places).
Rev 22:19. “If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (MT, CR) versus “If anyone takes away…God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…” (TR). [This is a major example of the TR varying from the MT.]
John 7:53-8:11. The account of the woman caught in adultery is bracketed by the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and NET, indicating those versions all believe this testing of Jesus is not Scripture at all. The KJV and NKJV both consider this Scripture.
Mark 16:9-20. The ending of Mark’s Gospel is not considered Scripture in the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and the NET Bible. The KJV and NKJV consider this Scripture.
Can Faith Save Him? James 2:14
Note how our seven translations handle this verse, and especially pay attention to the different ways they translate the last part of it, i.e., the question dealing with the connection between faith and salvation/deliverance. I have italicized key differences.
KJV: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?”
NKJV: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”
NASB: “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him?”
NIV: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”
NET: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?”
HCSB: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can his faith save him?”
ESV “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?”
The NIV, NASB, NET, and ESV qualify faith the second time it appears in the verse with words which question the validity of the faith: “such faith,” “that faith,” “this kind of faith,” or “that faith,” respectively. The KJV and NKJV do not supply the qualifiers. Though the HCSB has a qualifier (“his faith”), there is nothing in the qualifier that questions the faith.
The Greek merely refers to “the faith” (hē pistis). The definite article is also used with pistis in the nominative case in vv 17, 20, 22, and 26. Yet in none of these other places do the NIV, NASB, NET, or ESV translate the expression as that faith, such faith, or this kind of faith. The translators are making an interpretive decision for the readers here. The KJV, NKJV, and the HCSB more accurately represent the Greek, with no pejorative description of the faith in question.
In addition, the NIV and NET also seem to be interpreting for the reader when it translates ean… legē tis (literally “if someone says”) as “if a man claims” or “if someone claims.” Yet this destroys the verbal tie here with v 12. There the same verb, legō, is used and clearly it refers to speaking, not claiming. Note even the NIV and NET translations of v 12: “Speak and act as those who are going to [or will] be judged by the [or a] law that gives freedom.”
The issue in Jas 1:21–2:26 is that we are to be doers and not merely speakers. We find the same thing in 1 John 3:16-18. The issue in v 12 is saying versus doing, not claiming versus doing. Claiming has a pejorative tone. Why wasn’t v 12 translated that way then: “Claim and act as those who are going to be judged…”? The reason is obvious. That isn’t the point in v 12. The other five translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV) correctly translated ean…legē tis.
The Free Grace person using the NIV or NET is doubly handicapped on this verse. The NASB and ESV users are also handicapped, but not quite as much. The KJV, NKJV, and HCSB are friendly to the Free Grace position in this verse since their translation does not try to interpret the verse for the readers.
Last edited:
