Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | justme | 48920 | ||
Dear Makarios: You presented a very fine and authoritive answer worthy of "I am proud of you". As some know there is no way to translate every work from Hebrew or Greek exactly, into English.I like what the NIV editors say in their preface that no veersion is perfect. In our studies these translators are always seeking corrections from worthy sources. Should anyone find a better wording or have an opinion they wish to express to The Lockman Foundation or Zondervan Publishers they will listen and respond with respect. I have done this and was amazed athe volumes of material Zondervan sent me. The Lockman Foundation will assist you and answer anything you ask. In my humble opinion the Updated NASB is the most accurate word for word translation in print today in English. Agape, justme |
||||||
2 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | retxar | 48925 | ||
Greetings justme! The early church fathers usually quoted the longer or additional verses in question as the KJV/NKJV typically reads, rather than the shorter or omitted verses as most modern translations typically read. This would indicate, to me anyway, that the verses in question were from omissions rather than from additions. Check out http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/theo/kjv2.html (I’m not endorsing this site, only pointing you to a source of info). In the beginning was the Word! retxar |
||||||
3 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | justme | 48973 | ||
Dear retxar: I am not a Biblical language expert by any means. However, I have done graduate studies in Biblical criticism, with professors whose life study and teaching speciality was. When researching scripture they compare many early copies with each other. There were no verses at that time. Scripture was broken up into verses much later and I am not sure but I think about the 4th to 6th century at the earliest. Therefore if some verse or writing entry show up after the earliest manuscripts it would be a reasonable conclusion that writing entry, or verse was added later. An example of this would be Mark 16:9 to 20. Most translations will have a footnote or a reference somewhere near the verse to note this is a questionalble verse or verses. The KJV in its 1611 edition is not what you would expect. The spelling is not as we spell today. The v's are w's and many letters are not like today. There have been many revisions of the KJV, as more discoveries of earlier copies of scripture has turned up. Also words have completly changed in meaning. Having said that, the KJV is a good Bible and worthy of use today. I believe the very best Bible is the one you will read. I hope this helps retxar. agape, justme |
||||||
4 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | retxar | 49039 | ||
Thanks justme! You said "Therefore if some verse or writing entry show up after the earliest manuscripts it would be a reasonable conclusion that writing entry, or verse was added later." I understand what you are saying, however, what were the early church fathers reading from in the 2nd and 3rd century that seems to be quotes from what is supposable only found in later manuscripts and not the earliest known manuscripts? Example: Cyprian in Treatise XII, Book III, 43 is quoted as saying "Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Cyprian became a Christian in A.D.246 and was martyred in A.D.258, so this quote occurred during this time. This date precedes all known manuscripts of Acts. What he quoted was as Acts 8:36-37 reads in the later manuscripts that the KJV and NKJV are based on, not the earlier manuscripts that the NIV and NASB are based on. If you care to dig into it, I think you will find that most of the early church father’s from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, century, quoted scripture that consisted of the longer/additional verses as found in the later Antioch manuscripts instead of scripture that consisted of the shorter/missing verses as found in the earlier Egyptian manuscripts. Study to show thyself approved! retxar retxar |
||||||
5 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | Morant61 | 49058 | ||
Greetings Retxar! Your post brings up an interesting point my friend! Age isn't the only criteria upon which textual decisions are made. Among others, the reading which best explains the others is prefered. For instance, in this case, there is nothing objectionable about the theology of v. 37. Thus, it is difficult to imagine any circumstances under which this verse would be intentionally removed. However, if it were not original, it can be understood why someone could have added it - feeling that the Eunoch needed to make a confession for Christ before he could be baptized. So, in this case, the textual decisions are based on several criteria. First the age, then the difficulty in explaining why it would have been removed. It is interesting to note that out of the limited number of manuscripts with which Erasmus had to work, only one included v. 37 at all, and that was in the margin. Yet, Erasmus decided to include the verse because he felt that it had bee omitted by the carelessness of the scribes. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | retxar | 49059 | ||
What's you take on the early church father's quote of Acts 8:37 that preceeded the earlest known manuscripts? What could they have been reading? thanks, retxar |
||||||
7 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | Morant61 | 49060 | ||
Greetings Retxar! I haven't checked into the quote as of yet! But, assuming all the facts as you stated them, it could simply be that the expanded reading appeared early on and that was the reading being quoted. I personally believe that all of the NT books were written prior to 70 a.d.. So, there would have been nearly 200 years during whch the reading could have been expanded. Some readings are definitely harder to make decesions about. This appears to be one of those! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | the best Manuscripts? | Acts | retxar | 49075 | ||
Thanks Tim, Keep me honest bro and see if the quote I posted checks out or not! To me (if it checks out) this would assure those who might wonder if Acts 8:37 is authentic or not, to believe that it is. I admit it’s not iron clad evidence that Acts 8:37 was dropped from the earlier known manuscripts, but I’m sure anyone would have to admit it is at least a possibility. God bless! retxar |
||||||