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)
Message
Author
Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#11 Post by Bobcat » 11 months ago

Hi Stranger,

On Junia we had a thread about five years ago here.

A footnote in the NET at Rom 16:7 comments:
sn The feminine name Junia, though common in Latin, is quite rare in Greek (apparently only three instances of it occur in Greek literature outside Rom 16:7, according to the data in the TLG [D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 922]). The masculine Junias (as a contraction for Junianas), however, is rarer still: Only one instance of the masculine name is known in extant Greek literature (Epiphanius mentions Junias in his Index discipulorum 125). Further, since there are apparently other husband-wife teams mentioned in this salutation (Prisca and Aquila [Rom 16:3], Philologus and Julia [Rom 16:15]), it might be natural to think of Junia as a feminine name. (This ought not be pressed too far, however, for in Rom 16:12 all three individuals are women [though the first two are linked together], and in Rom 16:9-11 all the individuals are men.) In Greek only a difference of accent distinguishes between Junias (male) and Junia (female). If it refers to a woman, it is possible (1) that she had the gift of apostleship (not the office), or (2) that she was not an apostle but along with Andronicus was esteemed by (or among) the apostles. As well, the term “prominent” probably means “well known,” suggesting that Andronicus and Junia(s) were well known to the apostles (see note on the phrase “well known” which follows).

Wikipedia also has an interesting article on the textual issues involved (here). As that article shows, it is also possible to render the verse in such a way that neither Andronicus nor Junia were apostles, but merely a well known couple to the apostles.


For the sake of the linked thread on Junia I am linking this post to it.


Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#12 Post by Bobcat » 11 months ago

This Wikipedia article has some interesting food for thought for this thread: Here.

Usually one can find reasons for the omission of verses in the NET footnotes (here). There are probably other sources for textual information, but this one is my goto.

The NET footnotes are also a great source of possible alternative ways to translate words or phrases.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 1901
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#13 Post by Stranger » 11 months ago

Hi Bobcat,

I was wondering if you have ever read 'Truth in translation' by J.D. BeDuhn? I believe the WT uses some of his quotes for the NWT.



Stranger

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#14 Post by Bobcat » 11 months ago

Hi Stranger,

No I haven't, except for excerpts online. Which, by the way, you can see an online preview of it here.

I am getting ready to go to work, so I haven't had a chance to take a good look at this, but this might be a complete PDF of the book here.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 1901
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#15 Post by Stranger » 11 months ago

Bobcat wrote:
11 months ago
but this might be a complete PDF of the book here.

Hi Bobcat,

It's almost complete, missing about 3 or 4 pages. I read through most of it, what I got most out of it is that you cant trust any translation to be totally accurate. Some are better than others, but none come close to being faultless.

What I thought was interesting the most, is the way he explained how the NWBTC broke their own rules of translation to insert Jehovah into the NT and also left Him out where they should have inserted Him according to their rules.


Stranger, (Acts 15:17)

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#16 Post by Bobcat » 10 months ago

Linking this thread on intentional changes by the Sopherim to the Hebrew text. It is topically relevant to this thread.

The linked thread above is also related to this one.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 1901
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#17 Post by Stranger » 5 months ago

Hello to all,


Here's a scripture that my attention was drawn to. First thing I noticed was Jesus' Name was missing in many many translations including the NWT of course.
Secondly was the fact that Jehovah's Name was not there either, only Gods, including the NWT surprisingly.

2Cor 5:18 ESV / 2Cor 5:18 KJV

The scripture itself towards the end of it gives a contextual understanding understood by most to "GO PREACH".

I kind of feel as though this is a good 'checkpoint' scripture as to determining who all these antichrists that are running rampant and rough-shot are. Like great big bears all over the place.

Maybe somebody can expand some inspiration that inspires me to want to take Jesus' Name out of this scripture. You never know it might make you and I a better preacher.


Stranger, (2Cor 7:7)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BkkuIFS6mI

Bobcat
Posts: 3316
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#18 Post by Bobcat » 5 months ago

Hi Stranger,

I haven't found any commentary (yet) that comments on this, but, take a gander at this page (a little ways down to the section called "Greek Texts" that has the various reading of Greek master texts.

These textual readings are not manuscripts themselves but are a compilation made from earlier available manuscripts. Bible translations are usually made from these master texts. And generally speaking, the more recent the master text, the better. (This is due to a greater availability of manuscripts and ability to access them and analyze them.) The best today are generally considered to be the NA and UBS master texts. (I think NA-28 or 29 and UBS-4 are the most current.) If you are interested in more on this, see this page.

For the phrase in question ("Jesus Christ" versus "Christ" in 2Co 5:18) notice that some of the texts have διὰ Χριστοῦ ("through Christ") and some have διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ ("through Jesus Christ").

It seems to indicate (to me) that "Jesus" was in some of the early manuscripts and not in others. So that, depending upon which master text a translation uses, it will follow that reading. The early NWT was based on the Westcott & Hort reading which has διὰ Χριστοῦ. The Nestle-Arland (NA) and UBS (United Bible Society) texts read similarly (which the revised NWT is based on).

I am not completely sure, but off hand it looks like the different readings follow the early division of Christianity into east and west (Roman Catholic versus Orthodox). (It appears as "through Christ" in the Latin Vulgate [think Catholic Douay version or western church]. But then it appears as "through Jesus Christ" in the TR, from which the KJV [England] is made. So I am not totally sure of that assessment. Or maybe the TR represents some breakaway effort from the Roman church.)

That's my take on it so far. I would say that "through Christ" is probably the original reading. But I don't see any doctrinal significance either way. By the way, good eye for noticing this! :clap:


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 1901
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#19 Post by Stranger » 5 months ago

Hi Bobcat,
Bobcat wrote:
5 months ago
I am not completely sure, but off hand it looks like the different readings follow the early division of Christianity into east and west (Roman Catholic versus Orthodox). (It appears as "through Christ" in the Latin Vulgate [think Catholic Douay version or western church]. But then it appears as "through Jesus Christ" in the TR, from which the KJV [England] is made. So I am not totally sure of that assessment. Or maybe the TR represents some breakaway effort from the Roman church.)
That makes perfect sense (to me).
Bobcat wrote:
5 months ago
That's my take on it so far. I would say that "through Christ" is probably the original reading. But I don't see any doctrinal significance either way.
There is one that I can see, and that is the Human Element of the resurrection promise. When the Name of Jesus is absent from the Crown of the Christ things become.. (anti-beneficial). (James 1:12 KJV)

The Christ means so many things to so many people and the Titles of Christ come without number but there is only one Jesus Christ. (1Tim 2:5) Notice how the Christ is placed before the Name Jesus in this particular scripture? This is an indication that Jesus is in heaven sitting atop of his throne. Had it read Jesus Christ then that would be an indication of his time on Earth. Would you agree?

To me, it is crucial to make a distinction or Jesus becomes unreal, difficult to believe, and extraordinarily inaccessible. (ITim 6:16 KJV)



Stranger, (2Ki 6:16)

Dajo1
Posts: 345
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#20 Post by Dajo1 » 5 months ago

Hello Stranger,

Here’s one that’s always intrigued me. 1 Peter 1:11

Most other versions and translations have it quite different to the NWT. and it is interesting to look at the Greek in their (WTs) own Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek and where the word “spirit” actually is. The context is telling.

Bobcat
Hope you found the ...!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests