Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125358 | ||
Tim I usually yield you language expertise but this time I question it. The "yet" is very significant to me in this passage. If we use the ESV of this passage John 7:8 “You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." There is no opportunity for changing of mind. Jesus hear is saying "I am not going up to this feast." But then we see he does. I think it would be in your example, your kids ask you to go to the store and you say I'm not going to that store today. That is far different than saying I don't don’t want to go. Here you could change your mind and later go. In the former it would appear you speak out of both sides of you mouth as they say. Also in this case it is an all knowing God that knew for a fact He was going to the feast later. To me it makes the word ‘yet’ imperative. EdB |
||||||
2 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125372 | ||
Greetings EdB! There is no need to yield to me my friend! My opinion is just an opinion like anyone else’s. :-) Whatever else, we have provided an excellent example of the difficulties faced by textual critics. Here is what Dr. A. T. Robertson says about this controversy: *************************************** I go not up yet. So Westcott and Hort after B W L (Neutral) while ou (not) is read by Aleph D, African Latin, Vulgate, Coptic (Western). Some of the early Greek Fathers were puzzled over the reading ouk (I go not up) as contradictory to Joh_7:10 wherein it is stated that Jesus did go up. Almost certainly ouk (not) is correct and is not really contradictory when one notes in Joh_7:10 that the manner of Christ’s going up is precisely the opposite of the advice of the brothers in Joh_7:3, Joh_7:4. “Not yet” is genuine before “fulfilled”. One may think, if he will, that Jesus changed his plans after these words, but that is unnecessary. He simply refused to fall in with his brothers’ sneering proposal for a grand Messianic procession with the caravan on the way to the feast. He will do that on the journey to the last passover. **************************************** Another good point is that the last phrase ‘my time has not yet come’ is usually seen as a reference to His death, but in this case, it may simply mean that He is not ready to go up. Later, we know that He did. When is this time? When the time comes, couldn’t He go? :-) Either way, the point of my original post was simply that in this case, the choice is not between ‘older’ and ‘newer’ manuscripts – both readings have good ‘old’ support. This is really an example of difficult verses easier readings. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125384 | ||
Tim I understand the arguments and at one point I would have agreed the "yet" wasn't all that important. However lately I see Christianity sliding into compromise on every front. It is becoming a series of, “that really doesn't mean that it could mean this”, type changes to scripture to suit whatever and whoever. I know God is calling His people to draw a line in the sand and say I go no further reducing scripture to could be's and maybe's. Either it is the word of God to be taken literally and lived, or it becomes whatever we choose to make it and live the way we want. As I go through this process I'm getting more and more disenchanted with the “oldest” text and see more and more value in the TR. While I don’t see a demon hiding behind every verse in the new translations I do see a specialnest (newly invented word) with the Textus Receptus. Therefore if it is all the same to everyone I will keep “yet’ in my Bible. To me it presents our Savior in the light He should be presented even if it does pose some manuscriptural or translational problems. EdB |
||||||
4 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Huron | 125426 | ||
EdB, As you may have seen from my posts, I'm going through the same thing with my investigation of bible versions and the manuscripts/texts used for each one. Generally, I believe that the NASB is the best, but there is a place in my heart for the KJV. Like what is happening with the new versions today, I realize that the KJV had its detractors when it was first printed, and that it had some corrections that were made. Nowdays though, I wonder if the latest translations have a "planned obscelesence". I noticed that my circa 1985 NASB is no longer current. Among other things they decided to use the longer versions of Luke 24:50,51. Nowdays, with gender neutral NRSV, I think we might be going a bit far. Huron |
||||||
5 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125433 | ||
Huron I have always liked and used the NASB but I'm having trouble with the manuscripts themselves. The more I learn about the care and handling of the manuscripts the less I'm impressed with their integrity. Various groups with various agenda's have had near total control over many of the manuscripts and even today many are not available to scrutiny. Much of the research and translations based on the manuscripts is actually done from copies of the existing manuscripts. There were copies of the Bible in Latin and then later in German and English that were based on a set of manuscripts. They more or less set the standard for me. I would prefer than all “modern” generations be based on those manuscripts. Then if the translation team felt the need let them footnote any changes they felt should be included or deleted. What bothers me is things like pulling the “yet” of John 7:8 and footnoting it but then keeping Mark 16:9-20 and footnoting it. There seems to be no consistency. Also with John 7:8 we see that the translators weren’t consistent based on manuscripts. Each handled the situation a little differently. John 7:8 NKJV Based basically on the TR You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come." John 7:8 NASB Based basically Nestle’s Greek "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." John 7:8 NLT Based basically Nestle’s Greek. You go on. I am not yet ready to go to this festival, because my time has not yet come." John 7:8 NIV Based basically Nestle’s Greek. You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come." John 7:8 Based basically Nestle’s Greek Go to the festival. I'm not going to this festival right now. Now is not the right time for me to go." John 7:8 Based basically Nestle’s Greek You go ahead, go up to the Feast. Don't wait for me. I'm not ready. It's not the right time for me." I think for consistency they should let the set of manuscripts that produced the first English copies set the standard then any changes that are deemed appropriate could simply be footnoted. Your also right about the planned obsolescence. You also mentioned the gender neutral of the NRSV but it is also in NIV with the TNIV and many others. Now I’m told there is a homosexual favored Bible, a divorced persons Bible, and humanism favored Bible, and even a pet lovers Bible. In each they down play, emphasize or soften the wording around the particular area they have made their focus. This thing is getting out of hand and it is time to say stop! EdB |
||||||