NASB or ESV?

[The Templar]

The Greek texts used for the Geneva were the Koine Greek, a dialect so different from both Ancient and Modern it was considered an unknown language and ignored by most translators until about the 1960's when it was "discovered" and used for the Good News Bible (TEV).

You are correct, there are many new discoveries and considering the vast number of manuscripts and translations of those manuscripts one would think it impossible to manipulate the texts, providing people read multiple texts! Which also takes us back to a point I made in an earlier post about reading as many as you can.

As far as the bias reaching the text, I really don't think so. This is easily verified by comparison to the available texts, which is why I commented that The Geneva still stands as accurate today.
Could what little bias you may find in the margin notes be there because of the Roman Church sending armies to kill the reformers?

 

[Big Drew]

The Greek texts used for the Geneva were the Koine Greek, a dialect so different from both Ancient and Modern it was considered an unknown language and ignored by most translators until about the 1960's when it was "discovered" and used for the Good News Bible (TEV).

Where in the world did you learn this?

 

[The Templar]

A simple search of Bible translations.
A visit to the UBS or ABS websites.

 

[Big Drew]

A simple search of Bible translations.
A visit to the UBS or ABS websites.

I'm specifically referencing the bit about Koine Greek being unknown until the 1960s...whoever made that claim has no clue what they're talking about...I recommend not going to that website again...and if it was a pay site I'd demand a refund.

 

[The Templar]

I guess I need to ask for refunds from the publishers of textbooks also...

But, I do need to correct myself, I do have my dates wrong - sorry.
The correct dates are between 1906 and 1923, not the 1960 that I earlier stated.
I also did not state there were no copies before then, simply that the study of the Greek had not advance enough to fully understand/translate them accurately. Which should place a special focus on the accuracy of the translation performed by the translators of the 1545 Geneva!

No, I have not received my education from Google or any other free or pay website.
Thank you for your concern.

 

[Markus6]

I guess I need to ask for refunds from the publishers of textbooks also...

But, I do need to correct myself, I do have my dated wrong - sorry.
The correct dates are between 1906 and 1923, not the 1960 that I earlier stated.
I also did not state there were no copies before then, simply that the study of the Greek had not advance enough to fully understand/translate them accurately. Which should place a special focus on the accuracy of the translation performed by the translators of the 1545 Geneva!

No, I have not received my education from Google or any other free or pay website.
Thank you for your concern.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that nobody knew Koine Greek at all till 1906 or that the translators of the Geneva Bible knew Koine Greek but then everyone forgot it until 1906?

The King James was based on the Textus Receptus which was in Koine Greek and the authors of the 1885 Revised Edition chose different Koine Greek manuscripts that they thought were more accurate.

 

[Big Drew]

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that nobody knew Koine Greek at all till 1906 or that the translators of the Geneva Bible knew Koine Greek but then everyone forgot it until 1906?

The King James was based on the Textus Receptus which was in Koine Greek and the authors of the 1885 Revised Edition chose different Koine Greek manuscripts that they thought were more accurate.

This is what's confusing me as well. The Koine Greek manuscripts have been being translated to other languages for hundreds and hundreds of years...to say Koine Greek was unknown until the 20th century is a fallacy.

 

[holyrokker]

The question about Koine Greek prior to the 20th Century was regarding its linguistic roots. In other words; how the language came about. Did it develop from the classic Attic Greek, or was it a mixture of dialects?

It was never an "unknown" language. It was the common language of the region for nearly 600 years.

Koine Greek compared to "Classical" Greek is more like modern American English compared to Chaucer's English.

 

[The Templar]

I don't mean to confuse anyone, or start a huge debate.

"This is what's confusing me as well. The Koine Greek manuscripts have been being translated to other languages for hundreds and hundreds of years...to say Koine Greek was unknown until the 20th century is a fallacy." Big Drew

No, the history shows translators had a few copies but could not translate it due to the loss of information as to the mechanics of the language which resulted to it falling into obscurity with the start of the Byzantine era. While Koine may be the root of Middle Greek and Modern Greek, scholars lacked the volume of transcripts to develop the methods of translation of it.

A quick search, as I said, will give answers:

From Wikipedia to prove the facts are there if sought, as I really do not suggest Wikipedia as a sole source for theological information.

"Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was translated from Latin Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text."

Odd, there is no mention of the Koine, only Erasmus Greek New Testament which a little more research will show it was based on a few Byzantine texts with the holes filled with the Latin Vulgate.

Further research will also show multiple versions of what people call the Textus Receptus, with several based completely off of the Latin Vulgate.

In another article available on-line from Wikipedia, information is there if you look,

"Translations of the New Testament made since the appearance of better critical editions of the Greek text (notably those of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and von Soden) have largely used them as their base text. Unlike the Textus Receptus, these have a pronounced Alexandrian character. Standard critical editions are those of Souter, Vogels, Bover, Merk, and Nestle-Aland (the text, though not the full critical apparatus of which is reproduced in the UBS United Bible Societies' "Greek New Testament"). Notable translations of the New Testament based on these most recent critical editions include the Revised Standard Version (1946, revised in 1971), La Bible de Jerusalem (1961, revised in 1973 and 2000), the Einheitsubersetzung (1970, final edition 1979), the New American Bible (1970, revised in 1986), the Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible (1988, revised in 2004), and the New Revised Standard Version (1989).

I really did not come here to debate,
only to suggest the reading of many texts as opposed to only one.

 

[RevRo]

I guess I need to ask for refunds from the publishers of textbooks also...

But, I do need to correct myself, I do have my dates wrong - sorry.
The correct dates are between 1906 and 1923, not the 1960 that I earlier stated.
I also did not state there were no copies before then, simply that the study of the Greek had not advance enough to fully understand/translate them accurately. Which should place a special focus on the accuracy of the translation performed by the translators of the 1545 Geneva!

No, I have not received my education from Google or any other free or pay website.
Thank you for your concern.

I am very surprised at you, Brother Steven, it's not like you to make a mistake! But thank you for correcting it.

And as to where you received your eduation, I frankly admit that you are one of the most learned men in the feild. We will never see eye to eye on some of the ways you interpret scripture, but I certainly do respect your knowledge.

As to this whole string, I thank God we now have the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, as the written word has been tampered with by man's politics and agendas and trying to figure out which is the original and from God's mouth. (Or as it is commonly referred to 'God breathed'.)

God bless you!

 

[Markus6]

Odd, there is no mention of the Koine, only Erasmus Greek New Testament which a little more research will show it was based on a few Byzantine texts with the holes filled with the Latin Vulgate.

Koine is a language. Byzantine is a text-type. The Byzantine manuscripts are written in Koine Greek. Perhaps you meant the Alexandrian text-type instead? They generally were not discovered until later. However, the Geneva Bible was also based on the Textus Receptus - so it uses the Byzantine too.

Further research will also show multiple versions of what people call the Textus Receptus, with several based completely off of the Latin Vulgate.

There were multiple editions of the Textus Receptus. The original lacked some portions in the Greek so the text was created by back translating from Latin. However, in later editions they replaced the back translated Latin with Greek from other manuscripts, it would not have happened the other way around. Certainly no one would have ever attempted to fully translate the Latin back into Greek - that would be quite an undertaking and completely pointless!

 

[kiwimac]

I do hope we are not about to descend into a KJV-Only discussion!

 

[RevRo]

I do hope we are not about to descend into a KJV-Only discussion!

Well you know the qote "If it was good enough for the early Apostle's, it's good enough for me." LOL!
NO, that is not where this thread is going, as we all know the KJV is flawed in translation and although it still contains enough of the originals for salvation, it's not good enough to be considered 'God breathed'.

 

[1611AV]

Well you know the qote "If it was good enough for the early Apostle's, it's good enough for me." LOL!
NO, that is not where this thread is going, as we all know the KJV is flawed in translation and although it still contains enough of the originals for salvation, it's not good enough to be considered 'God breathed'.

So which one is God breathed? Do we have access to it in this day and age? The Bible you use can't even tell you who slayed Goliath. My 4 year old can tell you it was David and not Elhanan as the NIV, the NASB and many of the other (per) versions tell us.

As we all know? Some of us know better.

 

[RevRo]

I do hope we are not about to descend into a KJV-Only discussion!

I must apologize as I see we have a KJV only person (who is on my ignore list becase of his ignorance) sticking his nose in here.

 

[Big Drew]

So which one is God breathed? Do we have access to it in this day and age? The Bible you use can't even tell you who slayed Goliath. My 4 year old can tell you it was David and not Elhanan as the NIV, the NASB and many of the other (per) versions tell us.

As we all know? Some of us know better.

Apparently you're listening to some propaganda about the NIV and NASB...I was just reading 1 Samuel 17 last night in the ESV and it tells the story of David killing Goliath...just to be sure I checked my NASB and NIV and guess what?! They both say David killed Goliath...if you don't believe me and don't own copies of these versions you can go to biblegateway.com and read for yourself...I've heard some ridiculous statements in regards to versions other than the KJV before...but this one takes the cake.

 

[kiwimac]

From the NKJV:

Sam 17: 4 And a champion went out from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

Sam 17: 48-51: 48 So it was, when the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.
49 Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth.
50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David.
51 Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. And when the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the NASB:

Sam 17: 4 Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

Vss 48-51: 48 Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine.
49 And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground.
50 Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David's hand.
51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

As you can see, you are quite wrong.

 

[kiwimac]

From the NKJV:

Sam 17: 4 And a champion went out from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

Sam 17: 48-51: 48 So it was, when the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.
49 Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth.
50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David.
51 Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. And when the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the NASB:

Sam 17: 4 Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

Vss 48-51: 48 Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine.
49 And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground.
50 Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David's hand.
51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

As you can see, you are quite wrong.

 

[The Templar]

Koine is a language. Byzantine is a text-type. The Byzantine manuscripts are written in Koine Greek. Perhaps you meant the Alexandrian text-type instead? They generally were not discovered until later. However, the Geneva Bible was also based on the Textus Receptus - so it uses the Byzantine too.

Koine is not an individual language although it was thought to be, it is not.

I recall "Byzantine" is much more than a text-type.
Seems The Byzantine Era is something you could look up, try Wikipedia.

Here is a good website: ccel.com (sorry no links)
And: logosresourcepages.org/History/geneva_bible.htm (copy & paste)

Reading the histories one finds the texts used in the translation of The Geneva were used to later become the so-called Textus Receptus.

There were multiple editions of the Textus Receptus. The original lacked some portions in the Greek so the text was created by back translating from Latin. However, in later editions they replaced the back translated Latin with Greek from other manuscripts, it would not have happened the other way around. Certainly no one would have ever attempted to fully translate the Latin back into Greek - that would be quite an undertaking and completely pointless!

Really? Never was done, right? Pointless?
I did not come here to argue Biblical History 101, so I will stop now and reply no further.

 

[Markus6]

Koine is not an individual language although it was thought to be, it is not.

I recall "Byzantine" is much more than a text-type.
Seems The Byzantine Era is something you could look up, try Wikipedia.

Here is a good website: ccel.com (sorry no links)
And: logosresourcepages.org/History/geneva_bible.htm (copy & paste)

Reading the histories one finds the texts used in the translation of The Geneva were used to later become the so-called Textus Receptus.

Yes Koine is a dialect Greek. Sorry I didn't make that clear. However Byzantine, when refering to the categorisation of New Testament manuscripts, is a text-type. As I understand it the name is more due to the manuscripts generally originating from the city of Byzantium than due to it being in the Byzantine Empire or during the Byzantine Era. Alexandrian manuscripts were also written during the Byzantine Era and in the Empire and Byzantine manuscripts were written after the end of the Byzantine Era.

My point was that saying Erasmus' source manuscripts were mostly Byzantine does not mean that they were not Koine. They were, all Byzantine and all Alexandrian manuscripts are in Koine Greek.

Really? Never was done, right? Pointless?
I did not come here to argue Biblical History 101, so I will stop now and reply no further.

You will stop after throwing a string of sarcastic, assumedly rhetorical and yet unsupported questions at me? Gee thanks. If you know of a full translation into Greek from Latin I'd love to know about it but considering the general direction of translation (Greek being the original language) I just can't imagine it happening. What would be the point of producing a translation into Greek from the Latin when the Latin was translated from the Greek to start with and there are still Greek manuscripts around?