What are the errors in the New American Standard?

[timothy 1769]

Another error:

John 19
29   A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so (1) they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth.
30   Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "(2) It is finished!" And He bowed His head and (3) gave up His spirit.

Sour wine should be translated 'vinegar'.

Luke 22
17   (1) And when He had taken a cup and (2) given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;
18   for (3) I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by HankD:
There is also the danger of entrapment here. The KJVO IN MY OPINION, use this difference between these families of mss as a smoke screen device to divide us and evade the real issue since they don't really give credence to ANY greek text as "the English corrects the Greek" even the TR when it differs from the KJV.

I don't believe the English corrects the Greek. Do most KJVO?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Another error:

John 19
29   A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so (1) they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth.
30   Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "(2) It is finished!" And He bowed His head and (3) gave up His spirit.

Sour wine should be translated 'vinegar'.

Luke 22
17   (1) And when He had taken a cup and (2) given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;
18   for (3) I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."

John, under the inspiration of the Spirit, used the word oxos, meaning sour wine. So if there is an error, it is an inspired error. Oxos was a mixture of sour wine and vinegar.

 

[Daniel David]

Note also that the "fruit of the vine" was a pleasant drink. It will be used in the celebration of his return.

Sour wine does not fall under that category.

Again, I realize the difficulty of my original question, so I will have to restate it:

Does the NASB incorrectly translate ITS underlying text.

Tim, you are trying to prove a contradiction. That would be different than the purpose of the thread. However, it isn't even a contradiction. If you want to be in the dark and incorrectly interpret this text also, that is up to you.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Another error:

John 19
29   A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so (1) they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth.
30   Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "(2) It is finished!" And He bowed His head and (3) gave up His spirit.

Sour wine should be translated 'vinegar'.

Luke 22
17   (1) And when He had taken a cup and (2) given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves;
18   for (3) I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."

John, under the inspiration of the Spirit, used the word oxos, meaning sour wine. So if there is an error, it is an inspired error. Oxos was a mixture of sour wine and vinegar. </font>[/QUOTE]Oxos CAN mean sour wine, and it can also mean vinegar. Sour wine is an incorrect translation, as it introduces contradiction.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HankD:

Personally, to me "corrupt" has a bad nuance beyond "not perfect",

It can be ... but it does not have to be. For instance, Bart Ehrman wrote a book entitled The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, showing how the Byzantine text was corrupted by orthodox additions to it, put in by scribes who wished to protect doctrine from aberrant groups. </font>[/QUOTE]It's unfortunate that the word "corruption" has the connotations it does, since in textual criticism it's used as a non-pejorative technical term for "deviations from the original text."

BTW, Ehrman's book points out that MSS of *every* text type suffered at the hands of orthodox scribes who "massaged" their texts to make them "more orthodox." The "Western" text is filled with these kinds of additions, with the "Johannine Comma" (1 Jn. 5:7) perhaps being the best known example. Even the Alexandrian texts had some orthodox corruptions -- in Mt. 27:49 Aleph and B have added "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood" to counter the Docetists who believed that Jesus didn't really suffer and die on the cross.

 

[timothy 1769]

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.

No, 3 errors and counting

BTW, the CT, MT and TR agree on this bit of the text, so this is purely a translational issue.

Tim, you are trying to prove a contradiction. That would be different than the purpose of the thread.

A translation introducing a contradiction into the Word of God is an error. Even the corrupt CT allows for a non-contradictory translation here.

However, it isn't even a contradiction. If you want to be in the dark and incorrectly interpret this text also, that is up to you.

Nice how the KJV avoids all these contradictions, that somehow aren't really errors

Join me in the light, Brother!

 

[HankD]

I don't believe the English corrects the Greek. Do most KJVO?

According to Dr. Peter Ruckman it is a defining issue in the KJVO dispute.

The A. V. 1611 text is to be preferred over any Greek text, as it tells the truth of the matter, which is apparent by Jude 13. Notice how the English text corrects the errors in the Greek text” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence, p. 124).

Where the Greek text says one thing and the AV says another, throw out the Greek (Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence, page 137).

This is a prime example of the way in which the A. V. 1611 ‘purified’ the Receptus manuscripts” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence, page 163).

Moral: Where any version or text contradicts the A. V. 1611, THROW IT OUT” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence, page 172).

His books can be purchased at :
http://www.kjv1611.org

I suggest you get the Handbook to decide for yourself whether you can accept his theories.

HankD

 

[HankD]

perhaps being the best known example. Even the Alexandrian texts had some orthodox corruptions -- in Mt. 27:49 Aleph and B have added "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood" to counter the Docetists who believed that Jesus didn't really suffer and die on the cross.

A rarity (from John 19:34).

HankD

 

[timothy 1769]

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...

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
The NIV reads "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."

Did the Greek text read, "We have spoken freely to you"?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I can't speak for Bob but "corrupt" simply means "not perfect." "Perversion" means something entirely different. The Byzantine manuscripts are corrupt and there is ample evidence that they are not the most accurate text form available.

Corrupt means "To pervert; to falsify; to infect with errors; as, to corrupt the sacred text."

The Byzantine MSS agreed with 90% manuscript evidences. That means 10% corrupted MSS.

However the Alexandrian MSS agreed with 10% manuscript evidences. That means 90% corrupted MSS.

Therefore the Alexandrian family of MSS are **most** corrupted.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
That is what I understand "corrupt" to mean also. It is a synonym for "perverted."

Correct!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Originally posted by HankD:
There is also the danger of entrapment here. The KJVO IN MY OPINION, use this difference between these families of mss as a smoke screen device to divide us and evade the real issue since they don't really give credence to ANY greek text as "the English corrects the Greek" even the TR when it differs from the KJV.

I don't believe the English corrects the Greek. Do most KJVO?

Some of the KJV groups believe that. It is the Ruckmanities.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Did the Greek text read, "We have spoken freely to you"?

No, the Greek text reads "To stoma hmwn anewge pros 'umas," which means, literally, "The mouth of us is opened to you." That can be translated colloquially as "Our mouth is opened to you" or "our mouth is open unto you" or "we have spoken freely to you." The idea is that our mouths have not been shut, but open, and speaking freely to the Corinthians. Nothing has been held back, nothing has been kept secret. Paul is saying he has been open and honest with them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

Historians tell us it was sour wine mixed with vinegar that was a common drink of Roman soldiers. It is not an incorrect translation and it introduces no contradiction.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I can't speak for Bob but "corrupt" simply means "not perfect." "Perversion" means something entirely different. The Byzantine manuscripts are corrupt and there is ample evidence that they are not the most accurate text form available.

Corrupt means "To pervert; to falsify; to infect with errors; as, to corrupt the sacred text." </font>[/QUOTE]Actually it doesn't. You have been told by two people now, both with more knowledge than you, what it means in this debate. Learn and conform your belief to the truth.

The Byzantine MSS agreed with 90% manuscript evidences. That means 10% corrupted MSS.

No it doesn't. The Byzantine MSS is a family that disagrees with itself hundreds of times. In fact, there are no two Byzantine manuscripts that are identical. Every single manuscript has at least one difference from all the others. Secondly, 100% of the manuscripts agree more than 95% of the time. That means there is very little "corruption" no matter how you define it. Your statements are simply inaccurate yet again.

 

[HankD]

Personally I understand the specialized definition of the term "corrupt" in relationship to the arts and sciences of textual criticism.
But because of the watching world who probably does not, I feel reluctant to use the term even with those manuscripts which IMO exhibit "flaws" of duplication accuracy or "weaknesses" in scribal workmanship.

As the King James translators said concerning even "mean" translations, that they ARE still the Word of God. The KJVO (and some of us not like minded with them) might take their statements into account when we are speaking of the manuscript copies and translations of His Word (no matter how "mean").

After all He has said

"...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name".

I realize that "flaw" or "weakness" is not a positive term to use concerning the Word of God and translations thereof and I use them sparingly and reluctantly. I usually try to relate the terms to the "flawed" human instruments who copy, translate and/or publish it.

Just my opinion of course.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Nice how the KJV avoids all these contradictions, that somehow aren't really errors

Join me in the light, Brother!

Join in the light of this one from the KJV:

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39 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:

Please spare us the books of excuses the Onlyists have written about this-been there, seen it, done that. All the possible excuses won't change one letter in one word of these verses as found in the KJV.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Nice how the KJV avoids all these contradictions, that somehow aren't really errors

Join me in the light, Brother!

Join in the light of this one from the KJV:

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39 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:

Please spare us the books of excuses the Onlyists have written about this-been there, seen it, done that. All the possible excuses won't change one letter in one word of these verses as found in the KJV.

Where's the contradiction?