A Godhead Question

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I'd have to agree ... with Chan ... just from cursory reading ... and recently examining the IT controversy ... it's apparent that the writers of the NASB do a better job in keeping the Greek texts

I'm thinking of purchasing an NASB study bible.

Dan,

I have a NASB & I like it a lot.

From my limited understanding the NASB is translated from the minority texts and the MKJV is from the majority texts.

Originally Posted by Chan

Let's start with the footnote in the NIV:

Let's make a new thread, shall we?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by sola gratia

Father
Son
Holy Spirit

David Bernard said in his book the oneness of God, that these are merely modes of relationship between God and humanity. How silly, when we find the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. In most simple terms we see:

(1 John 5:7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


A God existing in a triune fashion, yet being ONE

Being triune does NOT mean being three persons. OPs don't deny God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

What are your thoughts on the Majority/ Textus Receptus that the KJV translates vs the Wescott Hort text of the NASB?

The NASB uses a variety of texts.

Here's the preface to the NASB:

PREFACE TO THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. [earlier editions read, "it has frequently been used as a standard for other translations. It is still recognized as a valuable tool for study of the Scriptures"] Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.

Translation work for the NASB was begun in 1959. In the preparation of this work numerous other translations have been consulted along with the linguistic tools and literature of biblical scholarship. Decisions about English renderings were made by consensus of a team composed of educators and pastors. Subsequently, review and evaluation by other Hebrew and Greek scholars outside the Editorial Board were sought and carefully considered.

HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.


I don't see Westcott-Hort there, do you?

But to answer your question, I have serious doubts about the Textus Receptus given its history and given the fact that Erasmus (whose Greek manuscript translated from the Latin Vulgate was used in the KJV) was a humanist. The KJV doesn't have the advantage of older Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to consult.

[sola gratia]

Originally Posted by Chan

The NASB uses a variety of texts.

Here's the preface to the NASB:

PREFACE TO THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. [earlier editions read, "it has frequently been used as a standard for other translations. It is still recognized as a valuable tool for study of the Scriptures"] Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.

Translation work for the NASB was begun in 1959. In the preparation of this work numerous other translations have been consulted along with the linguistic tools and literature of biblical scholarship. Decisions about English renderings were made by consensus of a team composed of educators and pastors. Subsequently, review and evaluation by other Hebrew and Greek scholars outside the Editorial Board were sought and carefully considered.

HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.


I don't see Westcott-Hort there, do you?

But to answer your question, I have serious doubts about the Textus Receptus given its history and given the fact that Erasmus (whose Greek manuscript translated from the Latin Vulgate was used in the KJV) was a humanist. The KJV doesn't have the advantage of older Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to consult.

Do not only do you like it, you think it is superior?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

The NASB uses a variety of texts.

Here's the preface to the NASB:

PREFACE TO THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. [earlier editions read, "it has frequently been used as a standard for other translations. It is still recognized as a valuable tool for study of the Scriptures"] Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.

Translation work for the NASB was begun in 1959. In the preparation of this work numerous other translations have been consulted along with the linguistic tools and literature of biblical scholarship. Decisions about English renderings were made by consensus of a team composed of educators and pastors. Subsequently, review and evaluation by other Hebrew and Greek scholars outside the Editorial Board were sought and carefully considered.

HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.


I don't see Westcott-Hort there, do you?

But to answer your question, I have serious doubts about the Textus Receptus given its history and given the fact that Erasmus (whose Greek manuscript translated from the Latin Vulgate was used in the KJV) was a humanist. The KJV doesn't have the advantage of older Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to consult.

Wasn't Rudolf Kittel a Nazi?

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Wasn't Rudolf Kittel a Nazi?

I don't know. Was he?

Originally Posted by sola gratia

Do not only do you like it, you think it is superior?

I like the NASB and I do think it is more literal than the KJV. Its English is a bit choppy (the result of more literal translation). The ESV is close to the NASB in literalness but much more readable.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

I don't know. Was he?

That's what my Greek teacher told us. I'll have to ask him for sources.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I disagree it is saying Jesus humbled himself as if He existed in eternity. Otherwise if this is speaking of preexistence then it makes no sense. If in this verse, Jesus was in the preexistent form of God then Jesus was God and it's wierd to say he as God 'thought it not robbery to be equal with God'. The Jews thought it was robbery for Jesus to equate himself with God and wanted to stone him for it because was a man.

But if you say that Jesus 'being in the form of God' means Jesus the man is the express image of God or God's human form (and God in any form is God) though he was God in flesh thought it not robbery to be equal with God [his Father who is Spirit] then it makes more sense. IMO

6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Mizpeh:

Are you suggesting Jesus became a man twice? You see, you claim He was a man in verse 6 where it actually says He has eternal existence in the form of God. Notwithstanding, in verse 7 Jesus "takes" (2aor/act/part) the form of a servant and was made (begins to exist 2aor/midD/part) in the "likeness" of human beings.

So if Jesus was a man in verse 6, what was he doing beginning to exist in the likness of human beings in verse 7?

TheLayman