What are the errors in the New American Standard?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
How would anyone read the text and understand the difference of what the wine is and what is vinegar?

Why is there a need?? When Christ said "fruit of the vine" he was not referring to "sour wine." You are really trying hard to find a problem when there simply is not one.

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?

Since I don't drink, and especially not vinegar (who does), I would bring a coke and they probably would think nothing about it.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HankD:
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 </font>[/QUOTE]So every account of this sign is "errant" in the KJV? Things different are not the same...

I am sure you don't believe this and I am not trying to offend you... just making the point that different wording can be essentially the same word.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Reminds me of the story from India of the blind men describing an elephant. As each felt only their little part, from their own perspective, they gave PARTIAL reports.

All true. But not COMPLETE.

Put together all the accounts of the simple sign above the head of Jesus on the cross.

Iesus
Nazarene
Rex
Iudea

Still have INRI on our communion table.

So each Gospel account is accurate, but only partial information. Combined? We have the whole "elephant".

 

[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?

 

[timothy 1769]

Textual issues aside, I have a feeling that when we all say the Bible is inerrant we must in reality be affirming radically different things.

 

[Scott J]

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.

This has been one of my main arguments all along. One's word can be expressed by various sets of words.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Textual issues aside, I have a feeling that when we all say the Bible is inerrant we must in reality be affirming radically different things.

What do you mean when you say the Bible is inerrant?

I apply it to what God said and the way He worded it in the originals rather than how it is communicated to us through copies and translations. Copies and translations are inerrant in as much as they accurately communicate the same message as the originals. By default, they are all different in wording from that which God inspired therefore they cannot be verbally inerrant since they are all works of men.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Textual issues aside, I have a feeling that when we all say the Bible is inerrant we must in reality be affirming radically different things.

Most of us here probably agree that the historic understanding of inerrancy is indeed the proper one. If you mean something different than that, then indeed we might have a problem. Inerrancy has never been used to argue for the perfection of a translation or a manuscript. It is only in recent years with the addition of "doctrine" found in the KJVO movement that this has been a problem.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Oxos CAN mean sour wine, and it can also mean vinegar. Sour wine is an incorrect translation, as it introduces contradiction.

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'). </font>[/QUOTE]Correct! Timothy 1769,

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
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.

Those are all interpretational issue Tim. Do you understand the difference between interpretation and translation? If you want interpretation first, then take an NIV. I am opposed to that form of translation philosophy, but since you are condoning that and other nonsensical ideas, go for it.

1. Where does the Scripture demand that the Peter and Timothy passage are parallel? Is it because they each use some of the same words? Classic.

The Timothy text is about the gathered assembly. The Peter text is about the wife's conduct toward her husband.

They aren't parallels. They address different things. Strike one.

2. As I have pointed out numerous times, the NASB correctly translates the underlying Hebrew text and the underlying Greek text. Just because you lack understanding in the interpretation, doesn't make it an error. Strike two.

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.

You better call in a pinch-hitter. Although I give you credit for manning up and actually challenging the points.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
[qb] Originally posted by Daniel David:
Again, I realize the difficulty of my original question, so I will have to restate it:
Does the NASB incorrectly translate ITS underlying text.

Uh, make that YES, 3 errors and counting...

I guess I missed something somewhere. Would you mind summarizing these 3 errors? </font>

Thanks for responding.

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.

The word 'merely' is italicized if I am not mistaken. Which honestly indicates that it is a word inserted to clarify the passage.

Do you really want to open the can of worms about italicized words that can be misinterpretted? The KJV has several.

This is interpretive on the part of the NASB translators but I don't think it constitutes an "error". If you do then please permit me to make the logic you employ the "standard" by which the italicized words in the KJV can be judged per Timothy 1769.

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.

Poor translation? Yes. In my opinion 'seed', 'progeny', 'offspring', etc. all convey the ambiguity present in the original better than "descendants".

I disagree that it is an error since the word can accurately be translated "descendants" and the translators are not under any obligation to cross-reference to determine wording. However, it could and should be better.

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.

"Sour wine" does not equal "wine" any more than "vinegar" does.

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

vinegar

\Vin"e*gar\, n. [OE. vinegre, F. vinaigre; vin wine (L. vinum) + aigre sour. See Wine, and Eager, a.] 1. A sour liquid used as a condiment, or as a preservative, and obtained by the spontaneous (acetous) fermentation, or by the artificial oxidation, of wine, cider, beer, or the like.

Note: The characteristic sourness of vinegar is due to acetic acid, of which it contains from three to five per cent. Wine vinegar contains also tartaric acid, citric acid, etc.

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 see some apparent rules that you employ to arrive at this conclusion. The million dollar question is whether you are willing to allow those same rules to be turned on the KJV and its translators... or if you are applying dishonest double standards.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Those are all interpretational issue Tim. Do you understand the difference between interpretation and translation?

Does the NASB in 1Peter 3:3?

In any event, most words have more than one sense. When translating, in such cases, one MUST interpret the original to select the correct sense which God intended. This takes spiritual discernment, it is not a purely academic exercise.

Choices of sense that lead to contradictions in God's inerrant Word are errors, of which the NASB has at least a few.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:

Choices of sense that lead to contradictions in God's inerrant Word are errors, of which the NASB has at least a few.

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 --

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

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."

In Acts 9:7 the Greek word φωνη (which can mean either "voice" or "sound") is in the genitive case, which focuses on the *source* of the voice or sound. In Acts 22:9, the Greek word φωνη is in the accusative case, which focuses on the *content* of the voice or sound. The NIV (unlike the KJV) incorporates the Greek case distinctions correctly into its translation of the verses:

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."

In other words, those with Paul heard the sound of Christ's voice, but didn't understand what it was saying. The NIV gets this right; the KJV not only misses it, but creates an outright contradiction in doing so.

 

[timothy 1769]

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

 

[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.

I apply it to what God said and the way He worded it in the originals rather than how it is communicated to us through copies and translations.

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

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.

By default, they are all different in wording from that which God inspired therefore they cannot be verbally inerrant since they are all works of men.

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

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Textual issues aside, I have a feeling that when we all say the Bible is inerrant we must in reality be affirming radically different things.

Most of us here probably agree that the historic understanding of inerrancy is indeed the proper one.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean the view laid out in the Westminster confession?

 

[timothy 1769]

Daienl David said:
1. Where does the Scripture demand that the Peter and Timothy passage are parallel?

Where does it demand that any passages are parallel? They parallel because the address the same issue.

Is it because they each use some of the same words? Classic.

No, because they largely teach the same thing.

The Timothy text is about the gathered assembly.

Prove that. Are all verses only about the assembly? How about:

1Ti 2:15
and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

Does this only apply to children born at church assemblies?

The Peter text is about the wife's conduct toward her husband.

1Peter is addressed to wives, and 1Tim to all women. That pretty much covers it!

1Pe 3:7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Following your literalism, I suppose it's OK for a for a man dwelling with a sister who isn't his wife (a bio sister, for example) to NOT live with her according to knowledge, NOT honoring her as the weaker vessel and heirs together of the grace of life?

 

[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.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:

Choices of sense that lead to contradictions in God's inerrant Word are errors, of which the NASB has at least a few.

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 --

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

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."

In Acts 9:7 the Greek word φωνη (which can mean either "voice" or "sound") is in the genitive case, which focuses on the *source* of the voice or sound. In Acts 22:9, the Greek word φωνη is in the accusative case, which focuses on the *content* of the voice or sound. The NIV (unlike the KJV) incorporates the Greek case distinctions correctly into its translation of the verses:

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."

In other words, those with Paul heard the sound of Christ's voice, but didn't understand what it was saying. The NIV gets this right; the KJV not only misses it, but creates an outright contradiction in doing so. </font>[/QUOTE]No contradiction, as hear can mean both to perceive sound and to understand what is perceived. I think it's pretty obvious which sense goes with each verse.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:

No contradiction, as hear can mean both to perceive sound and to understand what is perceived. I think it's pretty obvious which sense goes with each verse.

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.