Which is better, the NKJV or the Niv 2011?

[TCassidy]

Was Dr Metzger a recognized authority in textual criticism though?

Yes.

Do you think Dr Daniel Wallace is either?

Yes.

 

[TCassidy]

Scrivener and Kenyon, were the foremost textual scholars probably ever in the Christian Church. Robinson, though good, is not in the same class as these

You are aware, are you not, that Frederick Scrivener was on the translation committee of the ERV of 1881?

And I agree that Dr. Robinson is not on the same level as Scrivener and Kenyon. He is far above their level.

 

[Deacon]

Not a textual decision, but last year I read Bruce Metzger claim that the pericope adulterae was not referenced by any church father prior to the 12th century (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, 2005, 188) -- when even I, who doesn't claim to be an expert at anything, could discover that was wrong.
[underlining added for emphasis - Rob]

Found your claim hard to believe... so I checked
To be precise Metzger states:

"In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc, and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, *, ). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it."
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 187–188.​

Rob

 

[rlvaughn]

Who was an excellent, if a bit caustic, textual critic.

And now, will you listen while I state the grounds on which I am convinced that your substitution of ὅς for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else but a calamitous perversion of the Truth? Dean Burgon

 

[rlvaughn]

No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage,...

Well, that definitely does make a difference in the meaning! Not sure how I missed that. Thanks.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

You are aware, are you not, that Frederick Scrivener was on the translation committee of the ERV of 1881?

And I agree that Dr. Robinson is not on the same level as Scrivener and Kenyon. He is far above their level.

you make me laugh about Robinson! Have you read Scrivener's two volumes and Kenyon's handbook and on the Greek Bible? Show me Robinson's equivalent. Two more excellent scholars I could add, Charles Ellicott and Joseph Lightfoot, whose commentaries on some of Paul's letters, are still top of the league! Another of the KJV, is Lancelot Andrewes, brilliant scholar. The moderns including your friend, lag behind!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Found your claim hard to believe... so I checked
To be precise Metzger states:

"In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc, and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, *, ). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it."
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 187–188.​

Rob

And yet in the 4th century, a scholar much better than Metzger, Jerome, had copies of both Greek and Latin manuscripts that contained this passage. This in itself shows the shallowness of Metzget as a textual critic.

 

[TCassidy]

you make me laugh about Robinson!

Glad I could lighten your load.

Have you read Scrivener's two volumes

Yes.

Kenyon's handbook and on the Greek Bible?

Yes. And Harry Sturz, And Hodges and Farstad. And Wilbur N. Pickering. And A.T. Robinson. And F.F. Bruce. And J.W. Burgon. And Theodore Letis. And Edward F. Hills. And F.H.A. Scrivener. ...And on and on and on.

Show me Robinson's equivalent.

See above. And Google the rest.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The NKJV is quite limited in its use of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls is cited in six footnotes, Deuteronomy 32:43; 1 Samuel 1:24; and Isaiah 10:16; 22:8; 38:14; 49:5

I think you'll find that the NKJV cites the DSS considerably more than that in the centre-column references. A two-minute search of Isaiah in my NKJV revealed Isaiah 19:18; 23:2; 38:15 & 40:12.

 

[Deacon]

I think you'll find that the NKJV cites the DSS considerably more than that in the centre-column references. A two-minute search of Isaiah in my NKJV revealed Isaiah 19:18; 23:2; 38:15 & 40:12.

Thanks, I've been looking further and found 32 citations of the DDS, noted but not used in the main text

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes.

Yes.

Would you see them as being Experts in the same sense as Dr Robinson?

 

[Yeshua1]

you make me laugh about Robinson! Have you read Scrivener's two volumes and Kenyon's handbook and on the Greek Bible? Show me Robinson's equivalent. Two more excellent scholars I could add, Charles Ellicott and Joseph Lightfoot, whose commentaries on some of Paul's letters, are still top of the league! Another of the KJV, is Lancelot Andrewes, brilliant scholar. The moderns including your friend, lag behind!

Do you recognize the Majority/Critical Greek texts as being the word of God unto us then?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Do you recognize the Majority/Critical Greek texts as being the word of God unto us then?

All "texts" of the Holy Bible are just translations and therefore are not "infallible", which belongs to the original autographs only. Whether it is the TR, MT, UBS, NA, etc, etc, they all have the uses. It is just like the NIV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, while they agree in the greater majority of the text, there are differences, though in some cases, quite small. Even the good old KJV has its problems, with test and even incorrect rendering of the Greek text. The most important thing is, that all study of the Word must be with the aid of God the Holy Spirit, Who gives the best understanding to His Word.

 

[TCassidy]

All "texts" of the Holy Bible are just translations

Uh, no. The original language texts are the readings of the original language manuscripts compiled into a compete text.

are not "infallible", which belongs to the original autographs only.

I disagree. Infallible means "unfailing" or "never fail to come to pass." The history of the bible is infallible history, the promises of the bible are infallible promises, and the prophecies of the bible are infallible prophecies. They will never fail to come to pass.

The bible, original manuscripts, copies of original manuscripts (when properly copied), and even translations (when properly translated), are vested with infallibility in that there are no errors of fact in the bible.There may be transcriptional errors. There may be transmissional errors. There may be translational errors. But the bible is without error of fact.

Even the good old KJV has its problems, with test and even incorrect rendering of the Greek text.

I agree there are some errors in the primary Greek text underlying the KJV. The TR of that day can be demonstrated to contain variants that are largely indefensible. (1 John 5:7-8 come immediately to mind.)

But if you mean translational choices, most of those are a matter of scholarly opinion.

The most important thing is, that all study of the Word must be with the aid of God the Holy Spirit, Who gives the best understanding to His Word.

This is true, but it would be a grave error to suggest that my understanding of a translational choice is superior to your understanding of a translational choice because "The Holy Spirit led me" to that understanding, suggesting He did not similarly lead you. (Which, of course, begs the question, can the Holy Spirit lead in opposite directions?)

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Uh, no. The original language texts are the readings of the original language manuscripts compiled into a compete text.

I disagree. Infallible means "unfailing" or "never fail to come to pass." The history of the bible is infallible history, the promises of the bible are infallible promises, and the prophecies of the bible are infallible prophecies. They will never fail to come to pass.

The bible, original manuscripts, copies of original manuscripts (when properly copied), and even translations (when properly translated), are vested with infallibility in that there are no errors of fact in the bible.There may be transcriptional errors. There may be transmissional errors. There may be translational errors. But the bible is without error of fact.

I agree there are some errors in the primary Greek text underlying the KJV. The TR of that day can be demonstrated to contain variants that are largely indefensible. (1 John 5:7-8 come immediately to mind.)

But if you mean translational choices, most of those are a matter of scholarly opinion.

This is true, but it would be a grave error to suggest that my understanding of a translational choice is superior to your understanding of a translational choice because "The Holy Spirit led me" to that understanding, suggesting He did not similarly lead you. (Which, of course, begs the question, can the Holy Spirit lead in opposite directions?)

Firstly, how can you say that the "texts" of the OT and NT are not just translations? They are and cannot be the originals. We do not have photocopies of the originals, but COPIES, that were transcribed by copyists of manuscripts. This does not mean that they are full of errors, or not trustworthy, but that they are not the originals that God-breathed.

Secondly, again, like the first point, only the originals are God-breathed, and by nature of this alone, are Infallible and Inerrant. Take the example that you mention from 1 John 5:7, where I believe that "translations" like the KJV/NKJV, etc, have the words that teach the Holy Trinity.. Now, if we look at "translations" like the NIV/ESV/NASB/NTL, etc, this passage reads different, because verse 7 has been removed. Which of these two readings is "infallible", and represents the original autograph? Which is true and which is error? They both cannot be true.

 

[TCassidy]

Firstly, how can you say that the "texts" of the OT and NT are not just translations?

Translated from what language? Martian? The OT was inspired in Hebrew and the manuscripts we have are in Hebrew. And the NT was inspired in Greek and the manuscripts we have are in Greek.

A translation is, by definition, in a different language than the exemplar.

They are and cannot be the originals.

Nobody claimed they are.

Which of these two readings is "infallible", and represents the original autograph?

I believe the preponderance of the manuscript evidence indicates "7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν" best represents the autographs.

Which is true and which is error? They both cannot be true.

See above.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Translated from what language? Martian? The OT was inspired in Hebrew and the manuscripts we have are in Hebrew. And the NT was inspired in Greek and the manuscripts we have are in Greek.

A translation is, by definition, in a different language than the exemplar.

Nobody claimed they are.

I believe the preponderance of the manuscript evidence indicates "7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν" best represents the autographs.

See above.

I don't think that you are getting what I am saying. So I will try to make it clearer. ALL manuscripts of the OT which are Hebrew and for the NT, Greek, are COPIES of the originals, which we don't even have ONE. Before the DSS the oldest Hebrew Mss are all A.D., 100's of years after the OT canon was closed. The earliest Hebrew Bible is the Aleppo Codex, a work of the Masoretes, and of the 10th century A.D. None of these copies can claim to be "inspired",as the copyists were NOT "infallible" as the OT writers of the original autographs were. These copies have "mistakes" in them, and therefore cannot be the direct Word of God. ONLY the original autographs of both Testaments writers were "infallible" as they were led by the Holy Spirit to write what He told them to. NO copyist can ever claim this for themselves. Do you understand what I am saying here? There are some thousands of variants between the manuscripts that Erasmus used, and the manuscripts that the UBS used. True that they are some very minor, but the fact remains that in these places they are DIFFERENT. Which then is the "inspired" text? Both cannot be, as they differ.

You say that 1 John 5:7-8 in the TR, "best represents the autographs"; but the "text" that omits them, will also argue for the same. Which then is the original? One can only be "inspired", while the other cannot.

 

[TCassidy]

ALL manuscripts of the OT which are Hebrew and for the NT, Greek, are COPIES of the originals, which we don't even have ONE.

Yes. But you originally said they were TRANSLATIONS. There is a huge difference between a copy of a Hebrew or Greek manuscript and a translation of that manscript.

NO copyist can ever claim this for themselves.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Do you understand what I am saying here?

I think the problem is that you don't understand what you were saying. The manuscripts are not translations of some unknown original language. They are copies of the original language manuscripts.

Which then is the "inspired" text? Both cannot be, as they differ.

The most that can be said is that they are "inspired" only in the derivative sense.

Inspiration = original manuscripts
Preservation = copies
Translations = Vernaculars

You say that 1 John 5:7-8 in the TR, "best represents the autographs";

No, I said exactly the opposite. The TR reads οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν in verse 7.

Which then is the original?

I believe the Byzantine Textform of Robinson/Pierpont has the reading most likely, according to the preponderance of the manuscript evidence, to reflect the autograph,

 

[Yeshua1]

Uh, no. The original language texts are the readings of the original language manuscripts compiled into a compete text.

I disagree. Infallible means "unfailing" or "never fail to come to pass." The history of the bible is infallible history, the promises of the bible are infallible promises, and the prophecies of the bible are infallible prophecies. They will never fail to come to pass.

The bible, original manuscripts, copies of original manuscripts (when properly copied), and even translations (when properly translated), are vested with infallibility in that there are no errors of fact in the bible.There may be transcriptional errors. There may be transmissional errors. There may be translational errors. But the bible is without error of fact.

I agree there are some errors in the primary Greek text underlying the KJV. The TR of that day can be demonstrated to contain variants that are largely indefensible. (1 John 5:7-8 come immediately to mind.)

But if you mean translational choices, most of those are a matter of scholarly opinion.

This is true, but it would be a grave error to suggest that my understanding of a translational choice is superior to your understanding of a translational choice because "The Holy Spirit led me" to that understanding, suggesting He did not similarly lead you. (Which, of course, begs the question, can the Holy Spirit lead in opposite directions?)

Would we all agree that there is NO English translation that would be perfect/without any errors, but that their are versions that are still the word of God to us in our own language?
That there is NO Greek text used 100 % same as the originals, but that ANY difference would not mean any substantial differing from those originals then?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think that you are getting what I am saying. So I will try to make it clearer. ALL manuscripts of the OT which are Hebrew and for the NT, Greek, are COPIES of the originals, which we don't even have ONE. Before the DSS the oldest Hebrew Mss are all A.D., 100's of years after the OT canon was closed. The earliest Hebrew Bible is the Aleppo Codex, a work of the Masoretes, and of the 10th century A.D. None of these copies can claim to be "inspired",as the copyists were NOT "infallible" as the OT writers of the original autographs were. These copies have "mistakes" in them, and therefore cannot be the direct Word of God. ONLY the original autographs of both Testaments writers were "infallible" as they were led by the Holy Spirit to write what He told them to. NO copyist can ever claim this for themselves. Do you understand what I am saying here? There are some thousands of variants between the manuscripts that Erasmus used, and the manuscripts that the UBS used. True that they are some very minor, but the fact remains that in these places they are DIFFERENT. Which then is the "inspired" text? Both cannot be, as they differ.

You say that 1 John 5:7-8 in the TR, "best represents the autographs"; but the "text" that omits them, will also argue for the same. Which then is the original? One can only be "inspired", while the other cannot.

Any of the main Greek texts would reflect very accurately the originals, and any translation off them would reflect the word of God to us in our own language.