Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Can Unbelievers be killed? Acts Chapter 3 v 23

  1. Top | #11
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,348
    Rep Power
    23
    Deleted from what? The New Testament has no single autograph to which one could compare. What you mean is that they made different choices than the KJV, which is to be expected in a new translation. If you're reading an authorized copy of the NIV, none of those verses are entirely unmentioned, you just need to look down at the footnotes, where they explain the multiple manuscripts problem.

    The link is pretty funny, though! "Unspoken" indeed. As though the KJV-only crowd could ever be convinced to stop yammering about the scholastic superiority of Medieval witch-burners.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,857
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,913
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Deleted from what? The New Testament has no single autograph to which one could compare. What you mean is that they made different choices than the KJV, which is to be expected in a new translation. If you're reading an authorized copy of the NIV, none of those verses are entirely unmentioned, you just need to look down at the footnotes, where they explain the multiple manuscripts problem.

    The link is pretty funny, though! "Unspoken" indeed. As though the KJV-only crowd could ever be convinced to stop yammering about the scholastic superiority of Medieval witch-burners.
    Ah yes ok sorry about that. I browsed a little too quick over the net when there are are better examples, no doubt with a better title-heading than the title "unspoken...", which may be of a better satisfaction to you. But anyhow, my main point: the KJV is the better translation to the NIV when we compare to the much older (by a thousand years), Dead Sea Scrolls. The difference's with KJV and DSS .. is trivial, mainly grammatical differences or errors which makes NO changes to the narrative of course. But as you can see with the NIV, simply put, that's a lot of words and verses missing. Missing verses = missing information, to state the obvious.

    I'm not KJV only, because, as you may do yourself... I take advantage of cross referencing between translations/ versions etc..

  3. Top | #13
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,348
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Ah yes ok sorry about that. I browsed a little too quick over the net when there are are better examples, no doubt with a better title-heading than the title "unspoken...", which may be of a better satisfaction to you. But anyhow, my main point: the KJV is the better translation to the NIV when we compare to the much older (by a thousand years), Dead Sea Scrolls. The difference's with KJV and DSS .. is trivial, mainly grammatical differences or errors which makes NO changes to the narrative of course. But as you can see with the NIV, simply put, that's a lot of words and verses missing. Missing verses = missing information, to state the obvious.
    It's the "missing" part that seems overly theatrical to me. They didn't forget to include them, they just came to different conclusions than medieval scholars about was or wasn't included in the (purely hypothetical) autograph of these texts. Much less was known to Western academia about the provenance of the various manuscripts in 1611; the translators of the NIV had the advantage of being able to view and discuss the documentary evidence in considerably greater detail than their venerable forebears had access to.
    I don't see how the DSS relate to the question at all, if we're talking about "missing" New Testament material. If you want a translation that is very close to the DSS, though, I would recommend the an English translation of Ethiopic Bible over any Protestant version, as Protestant translators intentionally left out entire books that are present in the ancient Hebrew assemblage, including the so-called Apocrypha and the Book of Enoch. A much more serious exclusion than a few absent verses in the later religion's canon, I should think. The original KJV, of course, did include the Apocrypha, as a sort of appendix. Indeed, Protestant suspicion of their authenticity is how they came to be called that in English scholarship in the first place. Enoch was never included, and in many modern editions of the KJV, neither are the Apocrypha.

    I'm not KJV only, because, as you may do yourself... I take advantage of cross referencing between translations/ versions etc..
    Anyone who doesn't, need hardly bother having a conversation about the Bible at all. The internet has made comparison of translations extremely easy and accessible.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,857
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,913
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    I don't see how the DSS relate to the question at all, if we're talking about "missing" New Testament material. If you want a translation that is very close to the DSS, though, I would recommend the an English translation of Ethiopic Bible over any Protestant version, as Protestant translators intentionally left out entire books that are present in the ancient Hebrew assemblage, including the so-called Apocrypha and the Book of Enoch. A much more serious exclusion than a few absent verses in the later religion's canon, I should think. The original KJV, of course, did include the Apocrypha, as a sort of appendix. Indeed, that is how they came to be called that in English scholarship. Enoch was never included, and in many modern editions of the KJV, neither are the Apocrypha.
    I got that too, I am thankful to Ethiopians (people forget they had scholars too). I believe the Ethiopic bible is a great reference that highlights the consistency when there are various version. The dead sea scrolls as I'm sure you know, highlights the books (minus Esther) very like the Ethiopian bible which incudes as you pointed out the book of Enoch 1, in which I think should be included in the KJV (not Enoch 2 or 3, considered to be much later). Septuagint has shown to clear up a verse or two that may make no sense in the OT of the KJV, and I will say, has it's missing lines too, apart from B.O.E. (I saw that bit demonstrated on a vid).

    I'm not KJV only, because, as you may do yourself... I take advantage of cross referencing between translations/ versions etc..
    Anyone who doesn't, need hardly bother having a conversation about the Bible at all. The internet has made comparison of translations extremely easy and accessible.
    Agreed

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,067
    Rep Power
    22
    The Christian bible cannon was decide at Nicaea. It was part political and part theological. Agnostics and others were excluded.

    I believe the Jewish cannon was not set until after the fall of the Temple.


    The NT was set by representatives of Christian sects who did not completely agree on theology. One was tghe question of the divinity of Jesus.

    Christians argue over scripture that does not necessarily trace back to a Jesus.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,857
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,913
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The Christian bible cannon was decide at Nicaea. It was part political and part theological. Agnostics and others were excluded.

    I believe the Jewish cannon was not set until after the fall of the Temple.

    The NT was set by representatives of Christian sects who did not completely agree on theology. One was tghe question of the divinity of Jesus.

    Christians argue over scripture that does not necessarily trace back to a Jesus.
    Churches were already established before the cannon in the first century e.g., Pauls letters to the churches indicating the version of Christianity, as is, in the NT. I go along however, with some of the 'part political and part theological 'atmosphere' during that time in Nicea. Agnostics and others, especially of the late 2nd or 3rd century have a different view, when compared to the early Christians and early churches, a narrative measure to compare with, which would be noticeable to differentiate between the varid religious views/doctrines, hence them (aganostics and others) being excluded.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •