| Poster | Thread |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
I submit to you that we have been using the right Bible throughout the centuries, and now in this dark age of intellectualism --(beginning with the RSV, which used the minority manuscripts and the translators felt it necessary to allegorize and twist the creation in Genesis to make it fit with the pop-science of evolution...)
Just to try to prevent confusion but the first to base its translation on the Western Texts was not the RSV (1948) but the RV of 1881. The RV is the older sister of the ASV. The Revisers of the late 19th century were not trying to accommodate Darwinian evolution. It was only just getting started at that time.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
 2006/7/25 5:04 | Profile |
Combat_Chuck
Member
Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202
| | Re: | | Thanks for the correction. :-)
_________________
Combat Chuck
|
|
| 2006/7/25 6:24 | Profile |
MR_CPK
Member
Joined: 2004/7/9
Posts: 36
Indiana
| | Re: | | Philologos thanks for the example and the mention of the Newberry Bible. I just checked it out and ordered one.
_________________
Christopher
|
|
| 2006/7/25 12:01 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | There was a brief thread about Bullengers's Companion Bible and the Newberry Bible some time ago. There are several versions of Newberry. The most comprehensive has just a central column for the text as in my illustrations [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=175&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]here[/url].
BTW if you are familiar with the Bagster's Greek NT based on the Received Text you may be interested to know that it was created by Thomas Newberry but his name never appeared on it. It is still the best Greek Interlinear in my view.
If you have both the KJV Newberry AND the Newberry Greek Interlinear you have an amazing collection of information regarding the different manuscript evidences and the different Greek text editors. The two books together are a library of information about textual matters.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2006/7/25 13:09 | Profile |
PaulWest
Member
Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas
| | Re: | | Quote:
If you have both the KJV Newberry AND the Newberry Greek Interlinear you have an amazing collection of information regarding the different manuscript evidences and the different Greek text editors. The two books together are a library of information about textual matters.
Thank you so much for this. I will certainly be on the prowl for these two sources!
Paul
_________________
Paul Frederick West
|
|
| 2006/7/25 13:20 | Profile |
MR_CPK
Member
Joined: 2004/7/9
Posts: 36
Indiana
| | Re: | | You can also get the Newberry in an interleaf version, which is rare and very nice. They're reissing the wide-margin version too. You can pre-order that now at various places.
_________________
Christopher
|
|
| 2006/7/25 13:25 | Profile |
Christinyou
Member
Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3710
Ca.
| | Re: | | Reachout Trust - Jehovah's Witnesses - The New World Translation
Various editions of the KJV have been used, some with concordances, maps and marginal ... Murdock's translation from ancient Syriac; The Newberry Bible; ...
http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/jw/jwnwt.htm
_________________
Phillip
|
|
| 2006/7/26 0:23 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | This is a quote from Christinyou's URL Quote:
Over the years the Society has used and distributed many different versions of the Bible. Various editions of the KJV have been used, some with concordances, maps and marginal references; also Leeser's translation, with the English text placed alongside the Hebrew; Murdock's translation from ancient Syriac; The Newberry Bible; Tischendorf's New Testament; the Variorum Bible and Young's literal translation. The Newberry Bible was especially useful in that it incorporated marginal references that drew attention to occurrences of the divine name 'Jehovah' (used instead of 'the LORD') in the original language.
I want to come to the defence of [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=175&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]The Newberry Bible[/url] here. The Newberry Bible was (and is) a KJV Bible with many diacritical printing marks which show what he called 'the lights and perfections' of the word of God. The KJV did not use the name JHWH (or Jehovah)other than in about 4 places. The actual word JHWH is used over 7000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament (never in the Greek New Testament).
The Jews had developed a pattern where they substituted the word 'Adonai' for JHWH in their public readings of the scripture; Adonai means 'Lord'. The original pronuniciation of JHWH was probably something like 'Ya-Wa' with soft gutteral 'h's at the end of each syllable;it is now usually written as 'Yahweh' by scholars. At some stage when the name of JHWH was officially pronounced, as at public blessings, the proper name was 'defended' by including the vowels of Adonai into the YHWH which produced the sound 'YaHoWaiH' which with has now settled at 'Jehovah'.
The idea of defending the proper name of God in this was to prevent accidental taking of his name 'in vain'. The safest way to prevent accidental use of the divine name was not to use it at all and to substitute Adonai (Lord) or Jehovah.
The KJV translators adopted a similar reticence. Rather than have the proper name Jehovah scattered on every page of the scripture they opted for the word 'lord' but tried to show that it was the proper name by printing it in full upper case letters. hence the word LORD (not lord, nor Lord).
What Newberry did was draw attention to the fact that each time the KJV had 'LORD' (in the OT) it was in truth the proper name for God, YHWH or as we have become used to it... Jehovah. When Newberry draws attention to the word in upper case in the New Testament he is doing something slightly different which is showing that the original quotation in the Old Testament had the word Jehovah; the name Jehovah does not appear in the New Testament. (if you ask Jehovah's Witnesses why it is omitted from the New Testament they will say that it was removed by early Christians; needless to say there is absolutely no evidence for this statement.)
The ASV of 1901 has the word Jehovah almost 7000 times. Newberry's scholarship in this was impeccable but was used to bolster false JW doctrines. It is always painful to see truth used to entrap the unwary but it has ever been the Enemy's method.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2006/7/26 4:35 | Profile |
| | Re: KJV........ | | I realise that the thread has moved on, but I wanted to acknowledge this repsonse on p1.
philologos said:
Quote:
mmm? This is a little more complicated that it appears. Biblical Greek tenses are different to English tenses in many ways and it is difficult to get a strict equivalence of tenses from Biblical Greek to English.
The mental associations you have with regard to "! am the door" etc is that [b]this is a divine witness and you are right[/b]. The Greek verbal form for 'I AM the door...' is 'egO eimi' which means "I (emphasised) am" and is a clear connection to the I AM of divinity
It was a relief to have this confirmation (in bold) and thank you for explaining the difference when the perfect tense pertains. |
|
| 2006/7/26 12:57 | |
Christinyou
Member
Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3710
Ca.
| | Re: | | I thought it Ironic that the J.W.s' would pick up on this and then use it to promote the KJV, Newberry version. It is only a good version as long as it is correctly interpreted by the J.W. scholars at the watch tower head quarters. Sorry Ron if I implied it was not a good version of the KJV. I hope we have not gotten a critical spirit toward each other because of our differences in Theology. I respect your learned knowledge of the scripture, lets not loose the spirit of our love that is Christ in us, for the Word and each other.
In Christ: Phillip
_________________
Phillip
|
|
| 2006/7/26 17:27 | Profile |
