-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi Dorothy!
Regarding Bible translations: A good rule of thumb to start with is to reject the works of single men (not as in unmarried, but as in those who are not a part of a linguistic team with actual linguistic education, credentials, and with peer accountablilty), which would include Mormon works, the JW bible, and the Hebrew Roots versions that are out there, including the AENT.
In a nutshell, Bible translations break down into word-for-word translations or thought-for-thought ('equivalent dynamic') translations. And then there are paraphrases. Doctrine should be gleaned from more literal translations rather than paraphrases, as paraphrases are not as true to the original languages as translations are.
Both word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations have their strengths and weaknesses, and as such I personally refer to several translations when reading and researching. I have done lots of memory work from the King James Version (more a word-for-word translation); my primary (and worn out) version is the NIV (more a thought-for-thought translation) - the 1984 version, not the 2011 version, which I do not like. The 1984 version can still be purchased from distributors such as CBD:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntt=1984+version+NIV&N=0&Ntk=keywords&action=Search&Ne=0&event=ESRCG&nav_search=1&cms=1
When I'm online, I have active tab(s)s that look like this:. . . which gives me parallel versions to read at a glance.
You can go to the box with the translation title in it and click on the down arrow and change the version that appears, and add another parallel version by clicking on the 'Add parallel' button below the translation furthest to the right. Or you can 'x' out the parallels and just read one version. It's very handy =o)!
I also go to the Hebrew/Greek when needed, and for that, I've found the simplest site to use is Blue Letter Bible - Home Page.
It's primary version that comes up is the KJV (though other versions are also available), and from there you can access the Hebrew/Greek dictionaries very easily. Here's how it works:
Let's put in Heb 4:12. It will take you to that verse, but include the entire chapter on the page (which I really like for context). You'll notice to the left of the verse there are a cluster of 'buttons' with a letter on each button.
[TABLE="class: table_bible"]
[TR]
[TD="class: td_bible_6_buttons, align: left"]
[/TD]
[TD="class: td_bible_verse_heading, width: 68, align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: td_bible_text"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Clicking on the letter 'C' is the one which will give you the English and the Greek with the Strong's number. You can then click on the Strong's number in the middle column of the display and it will give you a complete definition of that Greek word. Take care to remember that meaning is in large part determined by context, so if you see the word, 'heart', for example, as in the last part of that particular verse, we can see that the meaning is not the physical organ that beats within our chests, but encompasses the more abstract meanings of the word 'heart' that follow - determined by context.
One of the cool things I learned from studying the verse above is that 'word' is not merely the written Word of God, but the Logos (Christ Himself, the same Greek word that John uses in John 1:1 to describe Christ in the beginning) of God.
Beyond that, here are a couple of links that you might find helpful:
http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm
Here's another helpful chart: http://www.mardel.com/bible-translation-guide.aspx
Here's one just for fun (note the Klingon version, ha!) - http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=Bible-Translations
Here's a site that gives a short synopsis of many translations available today: http://www.allbibles.com/Brands.asp
Now on to what some term the controversial stuff - there is the 'KJV only' viewpoint. I understand their stance, but disagree with it. There are tons of sites/videos out there to research the KJV only point of view - I've looked into it and have found their bias to be unreasonable, partly based on the facts I've researched about original texts (A video I found helpful in condensing the typical arguments into debate form can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTfiuksOwl4).
Here is a really long article about how we got our Bible . . . scroll down about 3/4 or so to the 'Textual Criticism' section for some good information: http://www.biblebb.com/files/howbible.htm
In fact, if you google 'textual criticism', you will find some good information.
Also be aware of a 'controversy' regarding the original language of the New Testament. Some in Law-keeping sects are more and more claiming either Hebrew or Aramaic primacy (the language in which the NT was originally penned), and claiming that the Greek corrupts the text. Greek Primacy is the overwhelmingly accepted view, based on textual criticism and credible scholarship.
Again, beware of any 'translations' that are the work of one man; there is no accountability and no peer review for such translations, and they tend to be works by men who hold to aberrant belief systems (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hebrew Roots, etc.) and are trying to force Scripture fit into their doctrines instead of changing their doctrines to fit the Scriptures.
Grace and peace to you in the Lord Jesus Christ,
-JGIG
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Regarding Bible translations: A good rule of thumb to start with is to reject the works of single men (not as in unmarried, but as in those who are not a part of a linguistic team with actual linguistic education, credentials, and with peer accountablilty), which would include Mormon works, the JW bible, and the Hebrew Roots versions that are out there, including the AENT.
In a nutshell, Bible translations break down into word-for-word translations or thought-for-thought ('equivalent dynamic') translations. And then there are paraphrases. Doctrine should be gleaned from more literal translations rather than paraphrases, as paraphrases are not as true to the original languages as translations are.
Both word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations have their strengths and weaknesses, and as such I personally refer to several translations when reading and researching. I have done lots of memory work from the King James Version (more a word-for-word translation); my primary (and worn out) version is the NIV (more a thought-for-thought translation) - the 1984 version, not the 2011 version, which I do not like. The 1984 version can still be purchased from distributors such as CBD:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntt=1984+version+NIV&N=0&Ntk=keywords&action=Search&Ne=0&event=ESRCG&nav_search=1&cms=1
When I'm online, I have active tab(s)s that look like this:. . . which gives me parallel versions to read at a glance.
You can go to the box with the translation title in it and click on the down arrow and change the version that appears, and add another parallel version by clicking on the 'Add parallel' button below the translation furthest to the right. Or you can 'x' out the parallels and just read one version. It's very handy =o)!
I also go to the Hebrew/Greek when needed, and for that, I've found the simplest site to use is Blue Letter Bible - Home Page.
It's primary version that comes up is the KJV (though other versions are also available), and from there you can access the Hebrew/Greek dictionaries very easily. Here's how it works:
Let's put in Heb 4:12. It will take you to that verse, but include the entire chapter on the page (which I really like for context). You'll notice to the left of the verse there are a cluster of 'buttons' with a letter on each button.
[TABLE="class: table_bible"]
[TR]
[TD="class: td_bible_6_buttons, align: left"]
[TD="class: td_bible_verse_heading, width: 68, align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="class: td_bible_text"]
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
[/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]
One of the cool things I learned from studying the verse above is that 'word' is not merely the written Word of God, but the Logos (Christ Himself, the same Greek word that John uses in John 1:1 to describe Christ in the beginning) of God.
http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm
Here's another helpful chart: http://www.mardel.com/bible-translation-guide.aspx
Here's one just for fun (note the Klingon version, ha!) - http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=Bible-Translations
Here's a site that gives a short synopsis of many translations available today: http://www.allbibles.com/Brands.asp
Here is a really long article about how we got our Bible . . . scroll down about 3/4 or so to the 'Textual Criticism' section for some good information: http://www.biblebb.com/files/howbible.htm
In fact, if you google 'textual criticism', you will find some good information.
Also be aware of a 'controversy' regarding the original language of the New Testament. Some in Law-keeping sects are more and more claiming either Hebrew or Aramaic primacy (the language in which the NT was originally penned), and claiming that the Greek corrupts the text. Greek Primacy is the overwhelmingly accepted view, based on textual criticism and credible scholarship.
Again, beware of any 'translations' that are the work of one man; there is no accountability and no peer review for such translations, and they tend to be works by men who hold to aberrant belief systems (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hebrew Roots, etc.) and are trying to force Scripture fit into their doctrines instead of changing their doctrines to fit the Scriptures.
Grace and peace to you in the Lord Jesus Christ,
-JGIG
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
If one promotes G.A. Riplinger as a teacher then one knows that it's not just in vain, it's misleading and and dangerous.
Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers: G.A. Riplinger: 9780979411762: Amazon.com: Books
Answering James White - Which KJV?
Answering James White’s Question - Which King James Version is the infallible words of God?
Answer White -Which KJB? - Another King James Bible Believer
James White's Big Question Answered: Which Edition?
[video=youtube;VGwFUgG-Qew]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGwFUgG-Qew[/video]
[video=youtube;VGwFUgG-Qew]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGwFUgG-Qew[/video]
Hi there Timberdoodle,
Actually I already stated some of the gacts in another thread. So what I will do this time, is simply share an excerpt written by Brother Will Kinney on the corrupt character nature of the Alexandrian text (Siniaiticus and Vaticanus):
Actually I already stated some of the gacts in another thread. So what I will do this time, is simply share an excerpt written by Brother Will Kinney on the corrupt character nature of the Alexandrian text (Siniaiticus and Vaticanus):
The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts
By Will Kinney
Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).
Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.
Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."
On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."
Herman Hoskier also has written a 2 Volume set called: Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. - Hoskier, Herman Charles (1864-1938) This thorough and scholarly work can now be seen online here: In it he documents many of the 4000 or more differences that exist just between these two "oldest and best" manuscripts.
Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. Part I - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Codex B and Its Allies: Part II - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other
SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.
VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.
Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."
This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV and ASV. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1963 to 1972 the NASB omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV of 2004 and the Holman Christian Standard of 2003 also retain the verse and place it in their modern versions, but The Message and the NET version continue to omit it. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?
Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.
The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV and Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science" huh?
In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.
Matthew 6:13
What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic.
These inspired words of our Lord Jesus Christ are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, German Luther, and the new Complete Jewish Bible.
However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words and the NIV, RSV, ESV omit them while the NASB, and Holman Standard put them in brackets.
Matthew 16:2-3 Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit most of 2 and all of verse 3. "When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky: but can ye not discern the signs of the times?". Here the NASB includes the words with no notes while the NIV footnotes that these words "are not found in some early manuscripts". .
Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.
However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of “unbelief”, and so the NASB, ESV and NIV read, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed. . .". If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had no faith, then Jesus's words make sense.
Matthew 27:49 A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, or the RSV, though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came out water and blood." This reading of both Aleph and B has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.
This reading also has Christ being put to death at this time, yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak. In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".
It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".
Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.
Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).
In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change “the prophets” to “Isaiah”, and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.
By Will Kinney
Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).
Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.
Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."
On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."
Herman Hoskier also has written a 2 Volume set called: Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. - Hoskier, Herman Charles (1864-1938) This thorough and scholarly work can now be seen online here: In it he documents many of the 4000 or more differences that exist just between these two "oldest and best" manuscripts.
Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. Part I - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Codex B and Its Allies: Part II - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other
SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.
VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.
Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."
This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV and ASV. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1963 to 1972 the NASB omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV of 2004 and the Holman Christian Standard of 2003 also retain the verse and place it in their modern versions, but The Message and the NET version continue to omit it. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?
Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.
The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV and Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science" huh?
In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.
Matthew 6:13
What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic.
These inspired words of our Lord Jesus Christ are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, German Luther, and the new Complete Jewish Bible.
However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words and the NIV, RSV, ESV omit them while the NASB, and Holman Standard put them in brackets.
Matthew 16:2-3 Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit most of 2 and all of verse 3. "When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky: but can ye not discern the signs of the times?". Here the NASB includes the words with no notes while the NIV footnotes that these words "are not found in some early manuscripts". .
Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.
However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of “unbelief”, and so the NASB, ESV and NIV read, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed. . .". If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had no faith, then Jesus's words make sense.
Matthew 27:49 A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, or the RSV, though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came out water and blood." This reading of both Aleph and B has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.
This reading also has Christ being put to death at this time, yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak. In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".
It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".
Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.
Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).
In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change “the prophets” to “Isaiah”, and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.
D
So if I wanted to make a Swahili translation should I translate it from the KJV or the Greek manuscript evidence? Of course I would go back to the Greek. The KJV only crowd can't see how absurd they are being. Did we have access to inferior bibles for the first 1600 years? LOL, of course not!
I won't waste my time watching some lame video about how a translation from Greek is perfect. How ridicules.
I won't waste my time watching some lame video about how a translation from Greek is perfect. How ridicules.
You could either translate from the Greek and Hebrew texts that are the basis of the King James Bible.
Or you can simply translate from the text of the King James Holy Bible. Either is fine. But I would recommend the latter.
The difference between purity and perfection in the translation of the Bible
[video=youtube;uFL1fKFnWoM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFL1fKFnWoM[/video]
Uploaded on Dec 9, 2011
This is a video response to those who raise the false question of where was the Bible before 1611. Their assumption is that to because King James Onlyists don't consider as Bibles those that came after 1611, that we don't consider those that were before 1611 as Bibles since they don't exactly match the KJB. That is a false assumption. The earlier Bibles were pure Bibles were blessed by God with His life and thus, were 'quick and powerful'. They were not yet perfect Bibles because English hadn't been perfected (completed) yet.
God will bless a pure Bible, from correct Mss and translated for the right reasons, love of His words, as He did before 1611.
Bibles that came after 1611 were translated from the wrong texts, and for the wrong reasons.
Well then don't open your mouth about something you do not have a good and well understanding of.
T
ChosenbyHim
You quoted
in verse 2 the quote "ἐντῷἨσαΐᾳτῷπροφήτῃ" is seen in the earliest Western type texts as well as the Alexandrian manuscripts. You are suggesting that they are wrong despite their age and authenticity for a later manuscript type.
This is just one example of why I believe that you are wrong.
In addition to that we clearly see in a verse 3 a quote from from Isaiah. Now can you tell me why we wouldn't understand verse 2 to be speaking about the prophet Isaiah and also why the earliest Manuscripts in fact state the obvious ἐντῷἨσαΐᾳτῷπροφήτῃ
Good luck
Timberdoodle
You quoted
in verse 2 the quote "ἐντῷἨσαΐᾳτῷπροφήτῃ" is seen in the earliest Western type texts as well as the Alexandrian manuscripts. You are suggesting that they are wrong despite their age and authenticity for a later manuscript type.
This is just one example of why I believe that you are wrong.
In addition to that we clearly see in a verse 3 a quote from from Isaiah. Now can you tell me why we wouldn't understand verse 2 to be speaking about the prophet Isaiah and also why the earliest Manuscripts in fact state the obvious ἐντῷἨσαΐᾳτῷπροφήτῃ
Good luck
Timberdoodle