So it's an a singular website site. May I cite you?
-
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!
The Pre-95 NASB Used TR
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
In a note on the ETC blog (9/12,2006)Maurice Robinson said :there are "more than 280 continuous-text MSS that do not include the PA."
M.R. also said in the same place, "the PA only appears sporadically" in lectionaries.
Analogies
Wikipedia says that the Japaese archipelago has 6,852 islands, of which 430 are inhabited.
I'll make a comparison. Those 6,422 uninhabited islands are like the bulk of MSS. They may have plants and wildlife, but no people. The inhabited islands, though far fewer are inhabited by humans making them much more important.
Or how about this? Pretend there is another world like Earth, but it has a lesser number of continents. There are four major continents --the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, the Alexandrinus and the Ephraemi Recriptus. The remainder of the world has many islands --far greater in number than those four. Some are linked up in tight clusters very near to continents --very much like Earth's Archipelago Sea,the largest island group. These islands are teeming with people though not on any mainland.
On many other islands, the continents are far away. Some of these islands have people, but the populations are small. However, most of the islands have no human population whatsoever.
Have you drawn the connections? Or do I need to spell it out for you?
Wikipedia says that the Japaese archipelago has 6,852 islands, of which 430 are inhabited.
I'll make a comparison. Those 6,422 uninhabited islands are like the bulk of MSS. They may have plants and wildlife, but no people. The inhabited islands, though far fewer are inhabited by humans making them much more important.
Or how about this? Pretend there is another world like Earth, but it has a lesser number of continents. There are four major continents --the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, the Alexandrinus and the Ephraemi Recriptus. The remainder of the world has many islands --far greater in number than those four. Some are linked up in tight clusters very near to continents --very much like Earth's Archipelago Sea,the largest island group. These islands are teeming with people though not on any mainland.
On many other islands, the continents are far away. Some of these islands have people, but the populations are small. However, most of the islands have no human population whatsoever.
Have you drawn the connections? Or do I need to spell it out for you?
Interesting though that still to this very day, the 1977 edition of the Nas is still respected and held to being the closest literal translation to the original language texts..
Assuming that one holds to the CT being the best base for a translation of course!
LOL! Now that is OLD technology!
When I retired and moved from San Diego to the Rio Grande Valley of Texas I gave my entire personal library (over 10,000 titles) to the church.
I didn't think I would need them any more. Stupid me!
No. The site is a singular site therefore the singular verb is grammatically correct.
Lets see:
1) The pre-1995 NASB includes some non-CT variants in brackets or in footnotes. A plus, not a minus.
2) The pre-1995 NASB used the latest CT then available. A plus and not a minus.
3) The pre-1995 NASB used word for word translation philosophy and therefore was said to be "overly literal." A plus and not a minus.
4) The pre-1995 NASB avoided the pitfall of paraphrasing. A plus and not a minus.
1) The pre-1995 NASB includes some non-CT variants in brackets or in footnotes. A plus, not a minus.
2) The pre-1995 NASB used the latest CT then available. A plus and not a minus.
3) The pre-1995 NASB used word for word translation philosophy and therefore was said to be "overly literal." A plus and not a minus.
4) The pre-1995 NASB avoided the pitfall of paraphrasing. A plus and not a minus.
From the book authored by Gordon D.Fee and Mark L. Strauss :How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth
"An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another, since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text paraphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right." (p.32)
"An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another, since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text paraphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right." (p.32)
Those that sacrifice accuracy for readability have fallen into the pit of paraphrase. Next, they say their paraphrase is not paraphrase. Or use the "everybody does it" rationalization.
Stick to the NASB95 for study, but use other versions for comparison such as the NET, WEB, HCSB, LEB, and NKJV.
Much has been made of the NASB95 backtracking a little on literalness for the sake of readability, but in these cases, the more literal reading is footnoted. Thus if you remove the words in italics (added for clarification) and insert the literal footnote readings, the NASB95 becomes the best English translation bible for serious study of God's word, bar none.
Stick to the NASB95 for study, but use other versions for comparison such as the NET, WEB, HCSB, LEB, and NKJV.
Much has been made of the NASB95 backtracking a little on literalness for the sake of readability, but in these cases, the more literal reading is footnoted. Thus if you remove the words in italics (added for clarification) and insert the literal footnote readings, the NASB95 becomes the best English translation bible for serious study of God's word, bar none.
Your words above only demonstrate that you don't understand simple English.
You don't know what you are talking about. Go to some footnotes in the book of Psalms in the NASB. Try inserting those words in lieu of the NASB rendering in the text. A nightmare of epic proportions would result. No clarity would be added --only nonsense. The NASB was right to relegate the literal to the footnotes --they certainly do not belong in the text.
Except that at times the translation would seem to miss the mark , and be taking more of a commentary tone at times!
And before you call me out on this, do still use and like the 1984 Niv, along with 1977 Nasb!
Much of the time when you make a comment on a quote your remark has no relevance. And that has been the case again here.
No particular translation was mentioned.
The NKJV is a rough read which confounds the reader at numerous points.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
There is something funny about harmonizations, and your post presents a suitable opportunity to demonstrate such.
Read Mark 15:27-32a without Mark 15:28 alongside Matt 27:38-42. Then read Mark 15:28-32a with Mark 15:28 alongside Matt 27:38-42. Now which is more harmonized: the passage with Mark 15:28 or without it? Of course the passage without Mark 15:28! Obviously the passage is not in Luke 23:32, where one would think it should be present if the copyist was trying to bring the passage in Mark into harmony with Luke.
To be sure, some assert that copyists inserted the passage into Mark 15:28 from Luke 22:37, but such an action certainly could not be called a harmonization, for the context of the two sayings is completely different. Even for this reason one might be right in surmising that some scribe or teacher, sensing the tension between the quote being applied in two very different contexts and assuming that one place was right and the other wrong, omitted it from Mark.
Yet perhaps a better reason for the omission of Mark 15:28 in that particular place is that it was fodder for early attackers of Christians in the second century. For example, Celsus loved to charge that Jesus was executed because he was a robber (Origen, Contra Celsum 2.44), that he was a criminal and not a god, etc., and it is conceivable that some early orthodox might have thought that eliminating the passage from this place in Mark might ameliorate somewhat the bite of the attack. After all, the connection of the passage in Luke 22:37 to Jesus telling the disciples to get swords is quite different than that of the passage in Mark 15:28 to Jesus being crucified between two "robbers," and thus, from an anti-pagan apologetic perspective (cf. Celsus' attack), perhaps more confusing to those who were familiar with Celsus-like attacks but were listening to the scriptures being read at a given worship service.
Nevertheless, Christians using Greek manuscripts like Origen in the 3rd century appear to quote the passage in reference to Jesus between the two robbers (i.e. Mark 15:28 and not Luke 22:37), and also Eusebius and Jerome in the 4th century. They did not seem to fear the presence of the passage in Mark 15:28, even though some copyist at some time or another apparently did.
For the record, the passage is present in Mark 15:28 in around 1475 (89%) Greek mss and absent in 183 (11%), so it's not just absent in a few early copies. In my opinion the passage was omitted and then the omission was propagated in a good number of mss due to the early date of its omission and for apologetic interests.
Not really, as it is one of the best english versions for serious studies in the Bible!
No, but there seemed to be an implied assertion that the Niv or something like that would be superior to more formal versions though!
You do not read carefully. I have told that over and over.
The quote addressed nearly all Bible translations. All translations paraphrase in some degree or another because... get this...they are translations. Translations are approximations.