|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 1. 2007The Blood
I hesitate to do this, but I must present truth. This is only a crumb of a pie, so take it for what it's worth.
It was recently brought to my attention that the King James Version of the Bible is superior to the New American Standard Bible because it does not omit the word blood in Colossians 1:14. The argument goes to prove that the NASB is altering doctrine. So I wanted to see what was up... First, I opened my copy of The Complete Word Study New Testament by Spiros Zodhiates to Col. 1:14 and this is what I found:  This told me one very important thing: because there are numbers above it, the word blood was definitely in the text used by Dr. Zodhiates. (If I'm not mistaken, he used Nestle-Aland.) If Dr. Zodhiates had it in the text he used (Alexandrian text-type), then since the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus (Byzantine text-type), then it can be argued that it's probably really supposed to be there. Ok, I think I just confused myself with that never-ending sentence... The word blood IS included in all the Greek texts in Col. 1:14. So I checked the NASB, and lo and behold, it's not there. CRISIS! CRISIS! CRISIS! Somebody call the Apostasy Police. The NASB is changing doctrine! Slow down. When I flipped over to the concordance in the back of the Zodhiates Word Study, I discovered that the same Greek word was used just 6 verses later in Col. 1:20. And it basically makes the same statement: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. But what does the NASB say? and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. So if the NASB is methodically removing this doctrinal issue, why did they take it out of one verse and not another? Clearly, the KJV is superior in Col. 1:14. But I don't see a conspiracy yet. So let's keep digging. First, there are 94 uses of the word "blood" in the KJV New Testament, but only 87 in the NASB. Now the picture starts to become clearer. Let's look at the 7 verses that are different. Matthew 9:20 KJV: diseased with an issue of blood twelve years NASB: suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years Mark 5:25 KJV: an issue of blood twelve years, NASB: a hemorrhage for twelve years, Luke 8:43 KJV: an issue of blood twelve years NASB: a hemorrhage for twelve years Luke 8:44 KJV: her issue of blood stanched. NASB: her hemorrhage stopped. Acts 17:26 KJV: And hath made of one blood all nations of men NASB: and He made from one man every nation of mankind Acts 28:8 KJV: the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux NASB: the father of Publius was lying in bed afflicted with recurrent fever and dysentery Colossians 1:14 KJV: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: NASB: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. What we find is that in 6 of the 7 verses synonyms are used. So the interpretation of 6 of these verses is identical in both translations. So really, we're only talking about one verse in the entire New Testament. Is it important? Absolutely. Is the KJV superior in this case? Probably. But this one verse alone does not make the NASB an apostate work, as some have argued. Remember, this is only one tiny truth in the grander conflict. |
SearchCalendar
Categories
Blog AdministrationStatisticsLast entry: 2009-07-01 16:09
721 entries written
367 comments have been made
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is a very poorly constructed argument because it assumes that the KJV is "the standard" and any deviation from it is an "error" or, worse yet, a deliberate attempt to water down doctrine. In reality, our standard should be, what the author (Paul in this case) wrote in the original GREEK. Variations between Greek manuscripts (not some heretical intent) are the reason for this kind of difference between the KJV and more modern translations.
In this case, there are only 9 relatively late (none prior to AD 800) Greek Manuscripts that support the reading that contains "through his blood." This is such a small number (there are about 5,500 Greek MSS of various parts of the Bible) that no scholar, whether he believes in Byzantine or Alexandrian priority, would consider it original based on external (purely MSS) evidence.
In all likelyhood, one of these manuscripts was used by Erasmus in compiling the TR.If you are wondering how that variant was created in the manuscript, check out Ephesians 1:7. Whatever scribe was copying Colossians probably (consciously or unconsciously) harmonized Colossians 1:14 with Ephesians 1:7.
If anything, this argument proves the INFERIORITY of the KJV in this particular pasage (oops, did I say that out loud?)
I've learned to say "not my convictions, but God's convictions." Though I've preferred the NASB, I know it's not perfect. I'm not anti-KJV or pro-NASB, and certainly not KJV-only.
The gentleman that brought Col. 1:14 to my attention, casually mentioned that the Holy Spirit showed him how the KJV was... I'm not sure what word he used... maybe best... hopefully he wasn't meaning inspired. At first, I didn't think much of it. But that phrase has been bothering me. I could easily say that I like this or that, so the Holy Spirit has shown me this or that. Does that make sense?
Spiros Zodhiates either got that phrase from the TR (which would make sense if this is a KJV study Bible) or from the APPARATUS of the NA27/UBS4 (which lists major known variants and their support no matter how slim).
You could check out the Johanneum Comma (I John 5:7-8) to see how he handles the trinitarian formula there (it's in the TR and two or three Greek MSS made at or after the time of the TR's publishing)