Featured Two principle NT issues.

Why?

 

What are we debating here? KJV vs. NKJV?
TR vs. NA28?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

1. What are the issues being discussed in your first sentence? Define the issue(s) before jumping to a conclusion.

2. Knowing a books faults makes you more included to use it? That’s a rather low standard.

Every translation team develops its own distinct Greek text based upon the text-critical decisions of its translators. Many/most of the recent versions are based upon the modern Critical Text however there are subtitle differences where its translating scholars may disagree with the decisions made in the Critical text and choose another path. Such decisions are occasionally noted in the ESV and other versions. One of the best at noting them, far better than the NKJV, is the NET Bible.

I think the NIV Greek text is observed in ‘The Greek New Testament, A Readers Edition’.

Rob

 

I agree. 37818, it is not clear exactly what principles or main issues you want to discuss. Seems to be something about translation and underlying text, but please define it more clearly for us. Thanks.

Sounds sort of like "the devil we know" adage. The KJV, having been combed over for 400+ years, is unlikely to hold any odd surprises. With very recent works, we might find ourselves "waiting for the other shoe to drop," so to speak.

 

Mentioning variants is not addressing the issue.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Yep, thank goodness people use the KJV and don’t have any unusual interpretations caused by a bad translation few can understand.

Take David Koresh. I’m sure he didn’t memorize the Bible in the KJV. Must have used a Living Bible.

Oh wait, he was a KJV reader. So the shoes are still dropping from the KJV shoe tree. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness are more examples. Christian Science and snake handlers are KJV users. Amazing what sort of nuttiness people will believe when they don’t have a decent Bible translation to read. Something they can read find out what God wants for themselves instead of trusting some nutty charismatic preacher.

In fact, the greatest proliferation of “Christian” cults occurred when the KJV was well past its due date and no other viable translation existed.

Maybe the KJV shoe tree is finally empty - maybe it isn’t. Here’s to hoping.

 

Marty, thanks for your very revealing post.

 

Where did I say that? I said just "mentioning" them does not address the issue. One must look at variants and explore what the likely source of a variant is. Is it orginal, scribal error of hearing, scribal error of reading, conflation, harmonization, scribal error of omission, liturgical expansion, pietistic expansion, can this variant explain the rise of other variants?...etc... What manuscripts have such variants? What are the dates? What is the quality of the rest of the manuscript, how does it relate to similar manuscripts.

Most likely not. This is most likely a scribal expansion to emphasize the 3 elements symbolize the trinity. Which is in error. The elements of water and blood likely refer to Jesus' ministry and thr Spirit confirms this ministry to that believers.

And they would be wrong. This addition was brought into the Latin by scribal expansion from in the 5th century. The early Greek, Syraic, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Old Latin all support the shorter reading.

Which is likely what John wrote. Which is support by early Greek manuscripts and early church fathers. "The Only Son" shows up in the 5th and doesn't become well attested until after the 9th century.

Scribes are not inerrant. Erasmus is not inerrant. The TR is not inerrant. The KJV is not inerrant. What the apostles wrote is inerrant. That is what I want to know.

Never said it doesn't matter.
You mean the expansion of verse 7?

Not sure why this matters? Are we ranking board members by seniority?



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Although I have not used the NKJV in a very long time, I really liked its textual footnotes. If the Textus Receptus was faulty, the correct reading would be in the footnotes. That is either the Majority Text or the Nestle/Aland text. So far it is the best "textual footnoted" Bible in existence. It was a no brainer that every Bible following could have done something similar. Instead of sporadically rare notes, done in a primitive, cave man sort of way. I wish an English Bible would list all differences between the 3 Greek Texts, with witnesses in the back or an additional book. The Net Bible may be an exception, but the one I used to own was sporadic in its choosing of notes. It would not list all Majority or Byzantine readings or Textus Receptus Readings.

 

I like what the 1611 KJV translators said.

The Translators to the Reader

 

Absolutely.

This one concerns me less than some of the others because Jesus is God and Jesus is being referred to regardless if we accept θεος (theos/God) or υίος (huios/Son). Jesus has clear been established by John as the μονογενής (monogenes) of chapter 1 and 3 and I have no knowledge of a Greek Manuscript that doesn't read μονογενής θεος or μονογενής υίος. It is also difficult to decide. It would be really easy for scribe to have an error reading and write the wrong word. In the form as nominative sacra, they are only 1 letter different. Granted, that letter looks much different.

The NA28 read "God".
The THGNT reads "Son" (my preferred text)
Robinson's Byzantine reads "Son"
Scrivener TR reads "Son"
SBL reads "God"

Among the most popular Greek new testaments "Son" is favored.

Modern translations are pretty split on which reading they follow.

ESV, NET, NASB, read "God"
NIV, CSB, WEB, NKJV, read "Son".
Historically "son" is favored by English translations.

In the latest edition of the UBS/NA the apparatus does look like the reading of "God" has slightly more weight externally. 01, 33, B, C, some the oldest Syriac, p66, p75, and several church fathers...some of these early leaders may have knew of both readings.

Internally for John to declare Jesus as the μονογενής θεος is the most power statement of his deity in the Bible...if that is the correct reading. If this is the correct reading it does harm to the reading "only begotten Son". Which is a reason many reject this reading. They want "only begotten Son" in there Bible.

If the reading is μονογενής υίος then it still supports Jesus' uniqueness and allows for the famous phrase "only begotten Son".

I prefer the μονογενής θεος (God) due internal support of John's argument of Jesus being (μονογενής) unique among all beings. This reading also echos 1:1 where it is stated Jesus is God. Granted if I believed John was establishing Jesus as "only begotten" in chapter 1, I would support μονογενής υίος (son) as I would perceive the internal evidence as suggesting such.

Overall if I had to rate my certainty that "unique God" or "only God" was the correct reading. In the scale of the UBS, I would say "C" (they rated it as a B).

A "c" is the equivalent of saying the decision is made with difficulty.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

With all due respect I believe this is inaccurate. Certainly all Greek manuscripts after the fourth century have “Son”. Your statement “ shows up in the 5th and doesn’t become well attested until after the 9th century.” Sounds like a mistaken statement by Professor Wallace regarding The Byzantine Text. His statement is not accurate, especially in this case. The reading “God” may be correct, but I do not believe it shows up in any Greek Manuscript after the 4th. It does have 3rd and 4th century support though.

Edited to add your accurate quoting of “C” 5th century and 33 (queen of the cursives). 9th century? So there are 2 Greek manuscripts after the 4th. I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

Do you have the autograph?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk