Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why the error? | Matt 21:29 | Art and Nancy | 158648 | ||
I understand the verse was corrected in later editions of NAS; my question is, why was the translation the way it was in the first place, with all other translations (except Moffatt, that I found so far) saying the opposite and with verse 31 apparently needing to be "fudged" to make it agree with 29? | ||||||
2 | why the error? | Matt 21:29 | Makarios | 158658 | ||
Greetings Art and Nancy, The 1977 NASB - Matthew 21:28-30 "But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, 'Son, go work today in the vineyard.' And he answered and said, 'I will, sir'; and he did not go. And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, 'I will not'; yet he afterward regretted it and went." The 1995 NASB - Matthew 21:28-30 "But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, 'Son, go work today in the vineyard.' And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he regretted it and went. The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, 'I will, sir'; but he did not go." The 1977 NASB has the first son declaring that he would go, but he in fact did not go work in the vineyard, but the second son said that he would not go, but later changed his mind and worked in the vineyard. The 1995 NASB has it the other way around, having the first son refusing, which would then make sense that the father would have to ask the second son, since the first son refused. If the 1977 NASB reading is correct, then why did the father ask his second son to work in the vineyard after the first son accepted (but, as it turned out, did not go)? The NET Bible (http://www.bible.org/netbible2) translates Matthew 21:29 in the following way: 21:29 "The boy answered, (2) 'I will not.' But later he had a change of heart (3) and went." Here are the textual notes behind this verse: "(2) tn Grk "And answering, he said." This is somewhat redundant and has been simplified in the translation. Here the referent ("the boy") has been specified in the translation for clarity." "(3) tn The Greek text reads here metamevlomai (metamelomai): "to change one's mind about something, with the probable implication of regret" (L and N 31.59); cf. also BDAG 639 s.v. The idea in this context involves more than just a change of mind, for the son regrets his initial response. The same verb is used in v. 32." (http://www.bible.org/netbible2) Therefore, the 1995 NASB update has it correct (agreeing with the order presented also in the ESV, KJV, NIV, NAB, Amplified, NRSV and NKJV), since the context and the Greek both point to the fact that the first son is the one who in fact should refuse and then go and do it anyway, while the second son is the one who accepts, but ends up not doing it. And this correct order is confirmed when the chiefs priests and elders answer Jesus by saying 'the first did the will of his father' in verse 31, since the first son actually DID do the will of his father, even though he refused at first. Therefore, this is an occurrence, when comparing the NASB 1977 and NASB 1995, of where the NASB update is more accurate then the NASB 1977. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3 | why the error? | Matt 21:29 | Hank | 158661 | ||
Good explanation, Makarios. A preacher told me one time, "They never get it all right the first time." He was, of course, speaking of translators and their new translations. That is one of the reasons I make it a point not to snap up every new translation until the ink has had a long time to dry! And it is one of the reasons also that the claims of the KJV-Only zealots are so absurd. What KJV are they talking about? It has undergone many changes since 1611. The most famous blunder in the history of the King James Bible rolled off the press in 1631. The word "not" was inadverently omitted from the seventh commandment, causing it to read, "Thou shalt commit adultery." This blunder led to this edition being called the "Wicked Bible" to this day, and the hapless printer was fined 300 pounds for his boo-boo. A corrected edition was produced as quickly as possible. Compared to the colossal blunder in the 1631 edition of the KJV, the mild verbal indigestion that the NASB translators experienced in their rendition of Matthew 21:28-30 as it appears in the 1977 edition is small potatoes! --Hank | ||||||
4 | why the error? | Matt 21:29 | mark d seyler | 158664 | ||
Hi Hank, The "Wicked Bible" today is valued for sale at about 90,000USD. If you had bought each one as it rolled off the press, today your collection would include: The Wicked Bible - 90,000 The He Bible - 175,000 (He - Ruth 3:15 - went into the city) The Vinegar Bible (the parable of the "vinegar") - this one is considered priceless, with only one known copy existing, and it's not for sale. These would buy me a house! The 1977 NASB wouldn't pay one month's rent on my apartment! Maybe in another four hundred years, if we can save one or two and destroy the rest! Seriously, this is why I compare many translations, and pray and study and pray and study and ... well, you get the idea! :-) Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
5 | why the error? | Matt 21:29 | Hank | 158665 | ||
Hi, Mark. I actually saw the "Vinegar Bible" with my own eyes. It's in the museum adjacent to the Old North Church ("One if by land, two if by sea") in Boston's North End. It was displayed under shatter-proof glass which was encased by a heavy frame, all under lock and key, and with a security guard standing by who was so mean-looking he made Bela Lugosi look like a choir boy. --Hank | ||||||