Textual Variant Revelation 11:10

In Revelation 11:10, the Byzantine text says people will “give gifts” to each other, whereas the TR and NA28 says they will “send gifts.”  Which turns out to be the more accurate prediction of gifting in the future?

Revelation 11:10- txt πέμψουσιν 𝔓⁴⁷vid 𝔓¹¹⁵vid ℵ² A C ƒ052 922 1006 1841 2040 2053txt vg it-gig Tyc1,3 Prim Ps-Ambr syriac coptic-bohairic arab TR SBL NA28 {\} πεμπουσιν ℵ* P coptic-sahidic arm2,3,4 Tyc2 Beat πεμψωσιν 2329 πεμπειν 2053com  δώσουσιν 046 1828 eth RP hiat 051 2050 2062.  To download my document that contains this:  http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf

Allah is not Yahweh

Yahweh has a son.  But, “Far be it from Allah, that he should have a son.”
1 John 5:11,12 And this is the testimony:  God has given to us eternal life, and that life is in his Son.  Someone who has the Son of God has life.  Someone who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 2:22,23 This is antichrist, someone denying the Father and the Son.   Everyone who denies the Son, does not have the Father either.  Someone who confesses the Son, has the Father as well.

Revelation 8:7 Homoioteleuton

A case of homoioteleuton in the Textus Receptus

Will one third of the earth be burned up or not?  Revelation 8:7.  This is a variant between Bible versions based on the Textus Receptus, and all others.  The Textus Receptus and the King James Version omit the first of the three phrases below, which means, “and one third of the earth will be burned up.”

καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς κατεκάη
καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν δένδρων κατεκάη
καὶ πᾶς χόρτος χλωρὸς κατεκάη

Only three late Greek manuscripts (out of 300+-) omit the first phrase, and it is a clear case of “homoioteleuton” that happened in the Greek copying process.  That means, the lines end the same, so a copyist, having left off his work for a break, then resumed doing his work, and he remembers, “I resume, at the line ending with κατεκάη,” but he resumed with the wrong line ending with κατεκάη.  Skipped one line by accident.  Homoioteleuton.

Interestingly, the scribe of manuscript 620 wrote the phrase in question two times, which is another kind of parablepsis from homoioteleuton.

As long as I am on this verse, let’s look at a Bible version.  As you can see, the word κατεκάη is used 3 times, the exact same word and same form of the word, and it means “burned up.”

NLT:  One-third of the earth was set on fire, one-third of the trees were burned, and all the green grass was burned.

So why does the New Living Translation render one of the occurrences of κατεκάη as “set on fire”?  This is simply unacceptable.  Just one of thousands of translation errors in the NLT.  I would never recommend the NLT, or the Message.  If you want a paraphrase, the Philips NT is much better, or the NIV.  I consider the NIV a mild paraphrase.

Please share this post about Homoioteleuton in the Textus Receptus

Longer Ending of Mark

The Longer Ending of Mark

The “Longer Ending” of the gospel of Mark was not the majority text, as late as the 5th century.  Victor of Antioch said that the majority of copies of Mark in Antioch in the 5th century lacked Mark 16:9-20. It is deceptive to indicate that the absence of the Mark Longer Ending has scant MS evidence. It would also be deceptive to state that the omission of Mark 16:9-20 is an Egyptian or Alexandrian one. Again, Severus, in Antioch, Syria, and Victor, in Antioch, Syria acknowledged that in the 5th century, the best copies, and even the majority of copies, omitted Mark 16:9-20. This is why I do not care what the number of copies made in the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th centuries, do include it. Isn’t that reasonable? See my notes in my translation of the Gospel of Mark.

Please share this post about the longer ending of Mark.

Textus Receptus Jude

I have completed and uploaded editions of the Epistle of Jude translated from the Textus Receptus and from the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine textform.  These, like my eclectic edition, show the readings of 62 Greek manuscripts plus 12 Greek New Testament editions, including the Antoniades, Von Soden, Pickering, Tregelles, SBL, NA28, Wesctott and Hort, Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus, Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, Hodges/Farstad, Tommy Wasserman, and David Robert Palmer editions.  These are PDFs in landscape mode.

Download the Textus Receptus Jude

Download the Robinson-Pierpont Jude

You can also download whole Bible editions based on the Textus Receptus and the Robinson-Pierpont.

Harmonizations Greek New Testament

We have all heard of harmonizations in the Greek text between the gospels.  But harmonization is not limited to the gospels.  I am working on the Acts of the Apostles right now, and we have a harmonization in Acts 9:5,6 in the Latin text and the Textus Receptus,

“It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”  Then, trembling and awe-struck, he said, “Lord, what do you want me to do?”  And the Lord said to him,

These words are not found in the Greek manuscripts, but come from Erasmus’ first edition of 1516, which in turn came from the Vulgate and old Latin MS h, which in turn probably came from Paul’s own later recounting of this event, found in all Greek editions in Acts 22:10 and 26:14.

Dependence

Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs it.

1 Thessalonians 4:11,12 “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.”

Notice two things from the above verses: 1, NOT working with your own hands when you are cabable, but instead living in dependence on someone else or on government aid, is not respectable.  2,  it is very close to stealing.

Submitting in the NRSV

I get a kick out of how the New Revised Standard Version weakens every instance of the Greek word HUPOTASSW, seemingly just so that wives are not commanded to submit to their husbands.  Here are 3 instances of the Greek verb HUPOTASSW in 1 Peter in the NRSV:

In 1 Peter 2:13, the NRSV says “accept the authority of” the emperor.  I guess we can accept the emperor’s authority without obeying him or submitting to him?  Cool.

In 1 Peter 2:18, slaves are to “accept the authority” of their masters.  I don’t think it would go over well if the slave did not actually obey his master, submit to his master, whether he “accepted the authority” or not.  The master says, “Slave, go chop a cord of wood.”  Slave says, “Master, I accept your authority over me, but I think I will play dominoes right now.”

Then we have 1 Peter 3:1, where the NRSV says “wives, accept the authority of your husbands.”  No, it says “wives, submit to your husbands.”  That is really quite different.  Peter goes on to say in verse 6 of 1 Peter chapter 3, that Christian wives are daughters of Sarah, so they should imitate Sarah, who called her husband “lord.”

Yes, that is most certainly “politically incorrect.”  But our Lord was arrested for being politically incorrect, and so were his apostles.  Just because the world is rebellious against God’s ways, and worldly wives are rebellious, does not matter.  We, as God’s people, do not conform to the world.  And we as God’s people should not use biased and corrupted Bible translations like the NRSV.