Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

Chat about anything you like here that doesn't fit under Bible Doctrines. Keep the subjects clean and refreshing to all.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Post Reply
Message
Author
Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Rev 20:5

#41 Post by Bobcat » 6 months ago

A thread on Rev 20:5 and possible changes or interpolations of the verse: Here.

Also see this post which details the chiastic structure of that portion of Revelation (Rev 19:6-20:15).


Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Acts 11:26

#42 Post by Bobcat » 6 months ago

A thread on Acts 11:26 and the phrase, "Divine providence" in the NWT: Here.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Jn 9:35

#43 Post by Stranger » 2 months ago

Here's a good one for the Bible wizards or perhaps by the Bible wizards.

(John 9:35 KJV) - (John 9:35), then compare (John 10:36)


Stranger

Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Jn 9:35

#44 Post by Bobcat » 2 months ago

Regarding "Son of God" or "Son of Man" at Jn 9:35, the NET has a footnote (# 102):
tc Although most witnesses (A L Θ Ψ 070 0250 ƒ 33 M lat) have θεοῦ (theou, “of God”) instead of ἀνθρώπου (anthrōpou, “of man”) here, the better witnesses (P א B D W sy) have ἀνθρώπου. Not only is the external evidence decidedly on the side of ἀνθρώπου, but it is difficult to see such early and diverse witnesses changing θεοῦ to ἀνθρώπου. The wording “Son of Man” is thus virtually certain.

Constable's Notes concurs on this:
Some early manuscripts and modern translations have “Son of God,” but “Son of Man” has the better support.

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Bruce M Metzger, 2nd ed., p. 194) says:
The external support for ἀνθρώπου ["of man"] (P66, 75 א B D W syr cop etc) is so weighty, and the improbability of θεοῦ ["of God"] being altered to ἀνθρώπου is so great, that the Committee regarded the reading adopted for the text ["Son of Man"] as virtually certain.

The reason "Son of God" appears in the KJV is probably because it was made with far fewer available MSS. Even so, the KJV reading is hardly problematic.

You can see some of the textual variants at the bottom of this page. TR, Byzantine and Greek Orthodox readings favor "of God."


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#45 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

"Has" or "has not"?

(Col 2:18 NIV, etc.).......(Col 2:18 KJV)



Stranger, (Tit 1:15 KJV)

Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertion - Col 2:18

#46 Post by Bobcat » 1 month ago

That is an interesting catch, Stranger.

For the reader, the phrase of interest is the next to last one in Col 2:18. It reads:
... intruding into those things which he has not seen ..." (KJV)

... That person goes on at great lengths about what he has supposedly seen ... (NET)

... going on in detail about visions ... (ESV)

... "taking his stand on" the things he has seen ... (NWT)

... claiming access to a visionary realm ... (HCSB)

... taking his stand on visions he has seen ... (NASB)

Here is the BibleHub translation listing. And here is the word-for-word Greek text. The phrase in question literally reads, "which he has seen detailing."

Looking at the various renderings, there appears to be some question about what Paul is actually trying to convey. The word rendered "detailing" (ἐμβατεύων, embateuōn, Strong's # 1687) is a NT hapax (one of a kind). If you look at Thayer's definition at that "1687" link it shows some variability as to its possible meaning.

I think one possible reason for the question of "has" or "has not" is related to this word. The fact that it is a NT hapax might have given the KJV translators some difficulty. Although, some other renderings (like NET, HCSB, Amplified, Christian Standard Bible above and at BibleHub) also include the possibility that the figurative person might not have actually seen what he is claiming to have seen.

See also post # 48 below for some additional research on this topic.

(The wife and I are visiting the city known for its Trolley tours. My better reference works are not at hand at the moment.)


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#47 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

Bobcat wrote: 1 month ago (The wife and I are visiting the city known for its Trolley tours. My better reference works are not at hand at the moment.)
Beautiful day for you and your candy girl to be in the "Sugar City". I hope y'all are enjoying your time. I was just there on Turkey day but didn't trolly.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JywK_5bT8z0



Stranger, :)

Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Col 2:18

#48 Post by Bobcat » 1 month ago

Just a little more on Col 2:18 and the question of "has" (Col 2:18 NIV) or "has not" (Col 2:18 KJV).

This link takes you to the commentary on Col 2:18 in the NAC-Philippians, Colossians, Philemon commentary (p. 271).

Actually, the link takes you to a specific page where the commentary addresses the "has" or "has not" issue that poster Stranger referred to.

The very last paragraph that begins near the bottom of the page points out that there are some textual variants in the phrase in question. The less attested variants make the statement negative (and thus the KJV reading).

The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Bruce M. Metzger, p. 556) agrees with the assessment that the variants that introduce a negative ("has not") were "added by copyists who either misunderstood the sense of ἐμβατεύων ["detailing"] or wished to enhance the polemical nuance that is carried on by the following εἰκῇ φυσιούμενος ["vainly puffed up"]." (Words in brackets were added by Bobcat for clarity.)

Incidentally, you can scroll up to the previous couple of pages where the NAC commentary begins its discussion of Col 2:18. The discussion of the verse has a number of similarities with the JW experience, where "worship of angels" might be comparable with 'worship of the organization.'

At any rate, it is interesting.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#49 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

Hi Bobcat,

On the subject of hapaxes, (Col 3:16) has a hapax expression within it, "the word of Christ". The WT has "the word of the Christ" of course to reduce emphasis on Christ himself and also is one of the scriptures they added Jehovah to at the end to keep all the member's mind right, I'm assuming.

At any rate I appreciate all your input, as always you're right on top of things.


Stranger

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Pr 25:23

#50 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

Okay well, this is not an omission or an insertion but a total opposite.

"driveth away rain" compared to "brings forth rain"

(Pr 25:23 KJV)... (Pr 25:23)


Stranger

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests