What are the errors in the New American Standard?

In this case I will have to agree with you, timothy 1769. Where is the supposed contradiction? It looks to me as if both verses says the same thing? What did I miss?

 

"whom ye slew and hanged on a tree".

I believe the apparent contradiction is that this statement makes it appear that they killed Jesus first and then hung Him upon the tree.

I remember looking at this passage in the Greek and the word "slew" primarily means "to lay hands on" or "condemn" in our vernacular and not necessarily "slay" or "kill".

diacheirizomai:
1) to move by the use of the hands, take in hand, manage, administer, govern
2) to lay hands on, slay, kill [with one's own hand]

"whom ye condemned and hanged on a tree".

HankD

 

HankD,

If that's the case, I don't think that qualifies. Specifically, It DOESN'T say "who ye slew and then hung on a tree".

 

I guess I missed something somewhere. Would you mind summarizing these 3 errors?

 

I think you misunderstood?

My point is that the word "slew" should be "condemned" so the verse would read

"whom ye condemned and hung on a tree".

But the word "then" is implied as it's implied in the following verse which doesnt say "repent and then be baptised".

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Anyway the point is that the choice of "slew" is the secondary meaning of the word. Every English translator thereafter followed suit.

Also in the Acts 10:39 passage:

"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:"

The word "slew" translates from anaireo:

337 anaireo {an-ahee-reh'-o}
Meaning: 1) to take up, to lift up (from the ground) 1a) to take up for myself as mine 1b) to own (an exposed infant) 2) to take away, abolish 2a) to do away with or abrogate customs or ordinances 2b) to put out of the way, kill slay a man

Again they chose the secondary meaning.

In fact in most of these cases (anaireo) the word "condemn" would fit.

diacheirizomai is used in the NT only in Acts 5:30.

HankD

 

tim: If that's the case, I don't think that qualifies. Specifically, It DOESN'T say "who ye slew and then hung on a tree".

hank: I think you misunderstood?

I think I understand. The "then" may be implied, but I don't think that it's required. A little example:

Bob: Marge, did you bake these cookies?
Marge: Not only that, I baked them and mixed them from scratch!

 

I guess I missed something somewhere. Would you mind summarizing these 3 errors? </font>[/QUOTE]1) 1Peter 3:3 inserts 'merely' with no textual support whatsoever, turning the passage on it's head and flatly contradicting Paul. An incorrect translation.

2) Promises are made to Abraham and his Seed in Genesis, which NASB translates as 'descendants', excluding the primary meaning, Christ, as revealed by Paul the NT. Another incorrect translation.

3) The NASB translates the Lord's drink on the cross, oxos, as sour wine contradicting Jesus Christ as recorded in Luke 22:18. Another incorrect translation.

Modern translators appear to suffer to varying degrees from a strange malady which keeps them from relying on their faith in the inerrancy of Scripture when determing the best way to render the underlying hebrew and greek.

 

I agree with you because the prophecy in the O.T. said vinegar. The N.T. said vineager. Both agreed each other. Then the KJV is correct.

The O.T. in MVs said vinegar and the N.T. in MVs said wine. They contradicted each other on the prophecy.

 

How would anyone read the text and understand the difference of what the wine is and what is vinegar?

At the party, for example, your friends have some wines, and they look at you when you carry a vinegar there. What would they think of you by bringing your vinegar instead of wine?

 

I agree with you because the prophecy in the O.T. said vinegar. The N.T. said vineager. Both agreed each other. Then the KJV is correct.

The O.T. in MVs said vinegar and the N.T. in MVs said wine. They contradicted each other on the prophecy. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't understand your point, Askjo. Mark 15:23, even in the KJV, says "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not."

BOTH wine (v23) and vinegar (v36) was offered to him. He was offered a drink twice, the first time it was wine, the second time it was vinegar.

What's the problem?

 

No problem here! However the problem is how you read the Scriptures and understand what the Scriptures explained.

 

All the places, including the prophecy about our Lord Jesus Christ, where modern versions render the hebrew word 'chometz' as vinegar, the greek LXX renders it as 'oxos', the very word from John now under discussion.

Interesting.

 

I agree with you because the prophecy in the O.T. said vinegar. The N.T. said vineager. Both agreed each other. Then the KJV is correct.

The O.T. in MVs said vinegar and the N.T. in MVs said wine. They contradicted each other on the prophecy. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't understand your point, Askjo. Mark 15:23, even in the KJV, says "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not."

BOTH wine (v23) and vinegar (v36) was offered to him. He was offered a drink twice, the first time it was wine, the second time it was vinegar.

What's the problem? </font>[/QUOTE]In John, our Lord drinks what almost all modern versions call 'wine' (at least in the NT, lol). This contradicts our Lord's statement regarding the fruit of the vine, and confuses the reader concerning the fulfillment of prophecy from Psalm 69:21 (in which, AFAIK all modern versions refer to 'vinegar').

 

Are we beating a dead horse here? We have four Gospels that say different things in reference to the same event. What we know for sure is that Jesus was offered a drink of whatever the romans had handy. It doesn't change one blip of doctrine if they offered Him wine, vinegar, or Gatorade.

 

It matters both because it was a fulfillment of prophecy and whatever the drink was cannot contradict Jesus' prediction about not drinking the fruit of the vine. Oxos can mean sour wine, but it can also just mean vinegar. I prefer the translation that shows the fulfillment of prophecy and avoids contradictions. Apparently most modern translators prefer the one that satisifies historians and scholars.

BTW, what was the supposed contradiction in the KJV above?

 

It matters both because it was a fulfillment of prophecy and whatever the drink was cannot contradict Jesus' prediction about not drinking the fruit of the vine. Oxos can mean sour wine, but it can also just mean vinegar. I prefer the translation that shows the fulfillment of prophecy and avoids contradictions. Apparently most modern translators prefer the one that satisifies historians and scholars.

BTW, what was the supposed contradiction in the KJV above? [/QB][/QUOTE]

I can't imagine anyone's getting much of a drink from a sponge stuck on a spear tip, unable to use one's hands.

The "contradictions" to which I was referring are the differences among the Gospels, and not necessarily to the one above. This topic is covered by me in a thread I began, which is now dead, where I explained that each Gospel was written by a different person or persons, and that different witnesses have different perspectives and writing abilities.

Again, are we not beating a dead horse?

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
The "contradictions" to which I was referring are the differences among the Gospels, and not
necessarily to the one above.

I'm willing to drop it, but I still don't see what contradiction you were referring to. Please tell me just to satisfy my curiosity, if nothing else.

Btw, I believe the Bible to be inerrant in its history. As a result I'm sure there's a harmonization of the gospels that explains all apparent contradictions.

 

Perhaps he means (for instance) the inscription Pilate had written and put above Jesus on the cross. Each gives a different wording.

Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

HankD

 

Then the sign said at least,

THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS