What are the errors in the New American Standard?

timothy 1769 · Dec 18, 2003

Scott J said:
"Sour wine" does not equal "wine" any more than "vinegar" does.

Sour wine does not have an independent entry in the OED, so I take it 'sour wine' is merely wine that is sour, on it's way to becoming a type of vinegar.

Here is Webster's definition. Note the origin of the word:

The origin is irrelevant, look at the sense. Sour wine can with time become a type of vinegar, but not all vinegar is from sour wine. They are not synonyms. Additionally 'sour wine' is a kind of wine in a transitional state, but vinegar is not.

timothy 1769 · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Archangel7:
I think it's pretty obvious that "hearing a voice" and "they heard not the voice" is a contradiction.

Only if you deny that 'to hear' has more than one sense. Do you deny it?

If it appeared in any of the modern versions, you'd probably agree that it was a contradiction; but because it appears in the KJV, you seem to be willing to make an exception.

No, but I'd likely call it a translation that needlessly gives Bible haters (atheists, etc.) something to squawk about.

At the very least, it's a poor translation in the KJV.

Since it's in the version that was universally accepted by the English speaking world for 3 centuries, used powerfully by God and is likely the single most influential book ever printed, I say with Job:

"Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth."

HankD · Dec 18, 2003

Since it's in the version that was universally accepted by the English speaking world for 3 centuries, used powerfully by God and is likely the single most influential book ever printed, I say with Job:

"Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth."

That’s an amazing application of that passage Tim1769 here is mine RE: The Elizabethan English of the KJV in 21st century America:

1 Corinthians 14:16 …how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

I hope you have a sense of humor.

HankD

Scott J · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
All true. But not COMPLETE.

I agree, Dr. Bob. The gospels don't record exactly what the sign was made of, but does that make them errant?

Not to most of us.

But if someone demands that a single set of English words is the only acceptable version of the Bible then to be consistent they cannot accept 4 different accounts of the same text as inerrant.
[/QUOTE]Even if those for sets are inspired by the Holy Ghost? That doesn't follow. [/QUOTE]No less so than 4 different Bible versions... all communicating God's inspired Word.

Scott J · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by Scott J:
What do you mean when you say the Bible is inerrant?

That it has no error at all in everything it addresses, including, but not limited to, theology, history and science. Utterly perfect.

Define "perfect"... and no, I am not kidding. There are several definitions that one might attempt to use with regard to this debate. The one that applies has to do with "lacking nothing essential to its kind."

That's nice, but you can't prove that even one verse remains as it was in the originals.

Yes. As much as anything in this world can be historically proven, I can. There are at least 25,000 ancient documents to back up the text of the Bible. 95%+ of the actually original wording is effectively beyond dispute. Your objection would be on the same order as claiming that King James I was not a real person. We have all kinds of evidence that says he was but you never know... maybe it was just some fabrication by well meaning Brits.

Copies and translations are inerrant in as much as they accurately communicate the same message as the originals.

Then without the originals to compare with, there's no way to Prove they have any accuracy at all.

See above. Men have gone to the electric chair on evidence less certain than that which attest to the text of the Bible.

If the only deviation in a prosecutors case was that one eyewitness to a murder said the murderer's shoes were gray and another said they were powder blue... I don't think any reasonable person would let the accused go. They probably wouldn't even let them go if another witness said the shoes were black and untied.

God's providence works through the acts of men, such efforts are almost always errant, but they don't have to be.

You can drop the "almost" unless you have a case in history when something done by man, even under providence, that was not in some way tainted by man's sinful frailness. When God is directly involved, the outcome is always inerrant, infallible, and without the possibility of improvement. No work of man without God's direct supervision is perfect in this way.

If you have proof to the contrary, please cite it so we can discuss.

timothy 1769 · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Scott J:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
All true. But not COMPLETE.

I agree, Dr. Bob. The gospels don't record exactly what the sign was made of, but does that make them errant?

Not to most of us.

But if someone demands that a single set of English words is the only acceptable version of the Bible then to be consistent they cannot accept 4 different accounts of the same text as inerrant.
[/QUOTE]Even if those for sets are inspired by the Holy Ghost? That doesn't follow. [/QUOTE]No less so than 4 different Bible versions... all communicating God's inspired Word. [/QUOTE]Are you claiming direct inspiration of Bible versions?

Scott J · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Even if those for sets are inspired by the Holy Ghost? That doesn't follow.

No less so than 4 different Bible versions... all communicating God's inspired Word. [/QUOTE]Are you claiming direct inspiration of Bible versions? [/QUOTE]No. I am claiming that no Bible translation/version is inspired (in any manner) to the exclusion of all others save the originals. In other words, the NASB is every bit as worthy of the title "Inspired Word of God" as is the NKJV... as is the KJV... as is the Geneva Bible, etc.

Daniel David · Dec 18, 2003

Tim, in 1 Timothy, Paul says that he writes to Timothy that they might know how to behave in the house of God.

1 Peter is about wives toward their husbands.

Askjo · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Archangel7:
The KJV has a few as well. One that springs to mind immediately is the contradiction created by its poor translation of Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 --

Poor translation? No! You are mistaken to say that.

KJV Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but seeing no man."

Nothing wrong! They heard a voice, not a sound because they understand what they heard. It is a voice, but they did not see a man. You got confused between a sound and a voice.

For example, my wife can hear BOTH - a sound and a voice. Our baby moved in a crib. Which one did my wife hear? A sound or a voice?

When our baby babbles, which one did my wife hear? A sound or a voice?

KJV Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me."

Nothing wrong again! No contradiction here! Read here: but THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me." That means that they did not hear what God said to Paul.

For example, I can't speak with my voice very well. When I tried to say something with my voice to BOTH -- my friend and my wife at the same time. My friend did not understand what I said. My wife understood what I said. My friend asked her what I say. My wife answered him for me. He heard my voice but my wife understands what I said.

NIV Acts 9:7 "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they HEARD THE SOUND but did not see anyone."

What sound did they heard? Not a voice?

NIV Acts 22:9 "My companions saw the light, but they DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE VOICE of him who was speaking to me."

How did they not understand the voice without hearing?

The NIV is not clear on these passages.

Askjo · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Daniel David said:
3. As I and Pastor Larry have pointed out, it is a correct translation of the Greek word "oxos". Again, Christ said he would not drink the fruit of the vine. It was a pleasant drink that he will enjoy when he returns. You are somehow confusing a pleasant drink with something extremely sour that was used to help dull the pain. Verrrrrryyyy good skills Tim. Guess what, strike three.

Jesus was given both wine mixed with myrhh and vinegar, I think you are confusing them.

What do you think about the prophecy in Psalm 69:21? The NASB say 'vinegar' there.

Correct! Exactly!

Askjo · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Archangel7:
I think it's pretty obvious that "hearing a voice" and "they heard not the voice" is a contradiction. If it appeared in any of the modern versions, you'd probably agree that it was a contradiction; but because it appears in the KJV, you seem to be willing to make an exception.

At the very least, it's a poor translation in the KJV.

Incorrect! You said "they heard not a voice" and "they heard not the voice" are a contradiction. You are mistaken to say them.

KJV Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but seeing no man."

If not a voice, did they see a man? That is very obvious to understand what they HEARD. A voice!

KJV Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me."

The voice is that they know what they hear, however they did not understand what God spoke to Paul.

" A voice" (Acts 9:7)

" THE voice" (Acts 22:9)

Are they same? Absolutely not! Contradiction? No!

Scott J · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
The KJV has a few as well. One that springs to mind immediately is the contradiction created by its poor translation of Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 --

Poor translation? No! You are mistaken to say that.[/QUOTE] Au contrare, mon frere.

Nothing wrong! They heard a voice, not a sound because they understand what they heard. It is a voice, but they did not see a man. You got confused between a sound and a voice.... Nothing wrong again! No contradiction here! Read here: but THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me."

You contradicted yourself. They either heard a voice or they didn't... it's just that simple.

That means that they did not hear what God said to Paul. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> NIV Acts 9:7 "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they HEARD THE SOUND but did not see anyone."
NIV Acts 22:9 "My companions saw the light, but they DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE VOICE of him who was speaking to me."

[/QUOTE][/qb] That may very well be what it means... it is obviously what the NIV translators thought it meant. However, it is NOT what the KJV says in plain English. In one passage it says the heard a voice in the other it says they didn't. By the law of non-contradiction, both of these cannot be true.

For example, I can't speak with my voice very well. When I tried to say something with my voice to BOTH -- my friend and my wife at the same time. My friend did not understand what I said. My wife understood what I said. My friend asked her what I say. My wife answered him for me. He heard my voice but my wife understands what I said.

Your example perfectly illustrates how the KJV errs. Your friend and your wife can both hear your voice. One understands. One does not.

However, you wouldn't say that your friend "heard not" your voice if he just didn't understand you. In one passage the NIV says that Paul's companions heard a sound which obviously means they didn't understand the speech. In the other passage, it says they didn't understand the voice. No contradiction at all.

On the other hand, the KJV clearly says first that they heard a voice then in the second just as clearly declares that they didn't hear a voice. This is a contradiction.

The NIV is not clear on these passages.

Having seen so many of your posts like this one, I can actually believe that you are this self-blinded to the truth on these passages.

Scott J · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:

" A voice" (Acts 9:7)

" THE voice" (Acts 22:9)

Are they same? Absolutely not! Contradiction? No!

Are you saying that someone else besides Jesus spoke to Paul out of the light? Put it back in context Askjo... you are doing violence to the scripture.

Dr. Bob · Dec 18, 2003

Askjo, you are way off base here.

Acts 9:7 in the Greek (St Stephens 1555, one of the three used to translate the AV)

"akouontes 'men tes phones, medena de theorountes"
hearing indeed THE voice, but no one seeing

Acts 22:9 in the Greek (as above)

"de ten phonen ouk akousan tou lalontes moi"
but THE voice not did hear of the one speaking to me

Think the AV making one a definite article and not the other is 100% error. It leads to confusion (obviously befuddled you) and is a poor translation.

I like the concept here that is obviously meant. Heard but didn't understand. Of course, that is the way most MV's translate it.

timothy 1769 · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Tim, in 1 Timothy, Paul says that he writes to Timothy that they might know how to behave in the house of God.

1 Peter is about wives toward their husbands.

Verse reference, please.

timothy 1769 · Dec 18, 2003

However, you wouldn't say that your friend "heard not" your voice if he just didn't understand you.

Matthew 13
13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while (1) seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (NASB)

Askjo · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Askjo, you are way off base here.

Acts 9:7 in the Greek (St Stephens 1555, one of the three used to translate the AV)

"akouontes 'men tes phones, medena de theorountes"
hearing indeed THE voice, but no one seeing

Acts 22:9 in the Greek (as above)

"de ten phonen ouk akousan tou lalontes moi"
but THE voice not did hear of the one speaking to me

Think the AV making one a definite article and not the other is 100% error. It leads to confusion (obviously befuddled you) and is a poor translation.

I like the concept here that is obviously meant. Heard but didn't understand. Of course, that is the way most MV's translate it.

The 1526 and 1537 New Testament agreed with the KJV.

They said, "a" on Acts 9:7.

Daniel David · Dec 18, 2003

Tim, do you read your bible or only the KJVO webpages?

I Timothy 3:15 and I Peter 3.

timothy 1769 · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by HankD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Since it's in the version that was universally accepted by the English speaking world for 3 centuries, used powerfully by God and is likely the single most influential book ever printed, I say with Job:

"Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth."

That’s an amazing application of that passage Tim1769 here is mine RE: The Elizabethan English of the KJV in 21st century America:

1 Corinthians 14:16 …how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

I hope you have a sense of humor.

HankD [/QUOTE]

just kidding!

If only the 19th century revision comittee had done the actual job given them, who knows... I admit archaic language is not an advantage, though its easy to overstate the problem. Everything can be understood well with just a little study. Unfortunately, the modern versions cause more problems than they solve.

Scott J · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
However, you wouldn't say that your friend "heard not" your voice if he just didn't understand you.

Matthew 13
13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while (1) seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (NASB)

Come on Timothy.... you know that you are ignoring context. Jesus is not recounting an event. He is illustrating a truth with figurative language.

Both Acts passages are accounts of Paul's conversion... they are not illustrations of whether his companions had spiritual understanding or not.

What are the errors in the New American Standard?

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Administrator

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member