What are your opinions of the NU and M texts in the footnotes of the NKJ? Sometimes they are way different than the traditional. And the Majority text can either indicated a Majority or it appears a divided Majority of differing opinions.
https://www.laridian.com/content/tsfaq. ... categories
What of the NU and M text?
Moderator: Moderators
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
What of the NU and M text?
Post #1
Last edited by brianbbs67 on Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: What of the NU and M text?
Post #11The question is extremely broad. There are very good and established criteria for selecting the most likely original of any text, whether the N.T. or Lucretius.brianbbs67 wrote: What are your opinions of the NU and M texts in the footnotes of the NKJ? Sometimes they are way different than the traditional. And the Majority text can either indicated a Majority or it appears a divided Majority of differing opinions.
https://www.laridian.com/content/tsfaq. ... categories
My personal favorite criterion is 'the harder reading'. That is, if one can more easily imagine a copyist changing x to y (because y makes more sense in context) then x is the better reading.
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: What of the NU and M text?
Post #12[Replying to post 11 by liamconnor]
Yes, it is broad. I wanted to start broad. Basic definitions of the references and what they are from and who decides them. Is there a NU or M council that meets and decides or...?
Your last sentence is very interesting to hear. Thanks.
Yes, it is broad. I wanted to start broad. Basic definitions of the references and what they are from and who decides them. Is there a NU or M council that meets and decides or...?
Your last sentence is very interesting to hear. Thanks.
Re: What of the NU and M text?
Post #13LOL, God did not and does not Inspire His Holy Word by " footnotes ", that is so funny, BTW God never told Moses or the other inspired writer with chapter Numbers or Verse Numbering either BTW, that is so funny.. do we hear where Moses says to God, " hey God, how about I write it this way instead ? " or " Hey God, what about saying it this way ? " as if us humans are greater than God Himself...JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 1 by brianbbs67]
Are you referring to the footnotes being "way different" or the manuscripts (NU / M)?
Good study bibles usually note in the footnotes when their are "significant" variants in source content, I know my translations does this NWT Reference Bible.
- I'm no expert but I know a good translation would reference as many different manuscrips as possible, favoring the most respected. The varieties between actual manuscipts are not as significant as some would have us believe as is evidenced by the relative uniformity of translations across the board.
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: What of the NU and M text?
Post #14lol, If you actually understood what these footnotes imply. We accept the bible as truly translated. But, then, if you study enough, you find there is disagreement , widely, on what is written. That is what the footnotes notated.TripleZ wrote:LOL, God did not and does not Inspire His Holy Word by " footnotes ", that is so funny, BTW God never told Moses or the other inspired writer with chapter Numbers or Verse Numbering either BTW, that is so funny.. do we hear where Moses says to God, " hey God, how about I write it this way instead ? " or " Hey God, what about saying it this way ? " as if us humans are greater than God Himself...JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 1 by brianbbs67]
Are you referring to the footnotes being "way different" or the manuscripts (NU / M)?
Good study bibles usually note in the footnotes when their are "significant" variants in source content, I know my translations does this NWT Reference Bible.
- I'm no expert but I know a good translation would reference as many different manuscrips as possible, favoring the most respected. The varieties between actual manuscipts are not as significant as some would have us believe as is evidenced by the relative uniformity of translations across the board.
Even the Jews disagree or just don't know what some of the ancient Hebrew meant. You look over a lot, looking over footnotes and references.
Just so you know, God did not write a single letter of the old or new testaments. Matthew didn't write Mathew. Mark wrote mark and many others ,BUT, its not Mark the disciple. Luke didn't write Luke and was not a disciple. John most probably did write John and was an Apostle, but even that is unsure 100%. Is it all unravelling now?
