Bible Discussion Thread

I have a question about Romans 1:16.

Can someone tell me the source of the words "of Christ"? Is this a mere explanatory inclusion?

Thank you for any help you can give.

Greetings Scotty, Romans 1:16 is Paul announcing he is ready to proclaim what Jesus wanted Paul to relay to us.

At that time is "the transition" to include all us gentiles = of all nations was in play.

Romans = doctrine

As Paul progresses in order in his gospels with doctrine Reproof & correction mixed in..

Note: We are truly justified in Romans 3:24-26 equals Gods free gift!

(Please also note Ro. Chapters 9/10/11 where Paul is speaking to his brethren/ Israelites/ at that present time beseeching them & only them to perform Ro. 10:9 as we know praying is a work & how the Jews at that present time in their life THEY would be accepted by The Lord. Some of that (rightly dividing of course) is for both!

Scotty as you read God inserts into the reader his understanding bc God knows who is serious & who is not. God knows the beginning to the end and the end to the beginning!

Knowing that God is a God of order & the simplicity in Christ Jesus!

Jesus tells us to follow Apostle Paul & His "establishment commandment." Romans 16:26 Thus, we read daily starting in Romans & when we are done for that day take a tassel & mark that ( where we will begin to read the next day) & do our daily business

Later, we read again in Genesis & when done tassel that page. So, each day we continue this (and will read Ro to Rev.) many times more as we progress through the scriptures of the prophets

Then when we completed Acts, "Proclaiming God wins and the devil loses"! Restarting the same process again

That's Gods Establishment Commandment!

Also, Romans through Revelation guides us in what's going on these days. Example Romans 1:27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Thus read Ecclesiastes 1:9

I don't think you have properly understood my question.

Thanks.

Hello Scotty. This is not a "mere explanatory inclusion" in the KJV. The inclusion of the words, "of Christ", in the KJV is because the NT manuscript that the KJV was translated from was the Textus Receptus (TR or, the Received Text). Even though it was a much later manuscript than the older ones used in the translation of most of the other versions of the Bible, we understand that it is the more reliable one, as it was not corrupted by the deletions, additions and amendments of the Minority Texts.

The following Bibles have used the TR: the Tyndale Bible, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, & the King James Bible. As well, Young's Literal Translation (1862) also used the TR in his translation work, hence the verse in question there reads, "for I am not ashamed of the good news of the Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to every one who is believing, both to Jew first, and to Greek." And this phrase, "of Christ" is omitted by the other translations, though the meaning & intent of the verse remains the same, as the Apostle Paul could refer to no other Gospel than the one associated to the Savior Jesus Christ & for Whom He was prepared to lay down his life.

Hi Chris, my understanding from what I've read about the sources used by the translators of the KJV is that they used the translation Erasmus made in English in the 1300's from the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus. Both Erasmus and Jerome (shoe translated the manuscripts into Latin) were Catholics, though many centuries apart as to when they lived and translated.

The KJ translators also used the translations you mentioned: Tyndale, Bishops, The Great Bible, Cloverdale, etc. The Textus Receptus (Received Text) are manuscripts Erasmus used to create his translation in English. The Textus Receptus was compiled only a few hundred years before the KJV was translated, although the content of the manuscripts go back to the Masoretic Text and a few other ancient examples.

The manuscripts that have been discovered since those of the TR are much older that those of the TR and there are a great number more of them from different origins. I think that these are very reliable, at least as reliable as the TR. But since the TR is based on the Masoretic manuscripts (which date much later that the Septuagint and were created by the Jewish rabbis well after the 1st century) I feel that the Masoretic Test is very flawed because of the errors in thinking of these Masoretic rabbis. I just cannot trust the writings of Rabbis who deny Christ is the Messiah, incorporated Babylonian syncretism in their teachings, created the Kabbalah and other occultic writings and practices. I would tend to trust the much older manuscripts that were copied by Christians in the early centuries after Christs' ascension.

Thanks GiGi for your input. One would need to do a detailed examination of those manuscripts & other texts to verify if & where errors are evident. And this is an exercise that I & no doubt most others, wouldn't be competent to do. For now, my only 'go to' is to the original languages, at least accepting what is given us in lexicons, etc., to ascertain how specific words were understood & translated into English. And as you know, from other discussions here on this aspect, findings can be either quite enlightening, accepted or relegated to the trash; that those exercises which find some other translations, such as the NIV/NASB can actually be more accurate (in our present comprehension of meaning & thought), than the 17th/18th Century productions is compelling. It's only where conflicts, omissions, etc. occur, that one would need to do a more thorough qualified analysis. And even these have been done, however, both sides of the fence (those holding firmly to the TR or those to the Alexandricus/Sinaiticus, et al, MSS) can also give compelling evidence in support of their position. Thanks again.

Hi Chris,

I am aware of the TR but that is not a manuscript rather the TR is a collection of MSS compiled and printed as a full edition of the NT.

I am looking for the source of the words "of Christ". I cannot find ANY manuscript or early church Father or early translation that has that phrase. This is why I thought it may be an explanatory inclusion.

Thanks for trying.

You're right Scotty, that the TR is not a single manuscript but from many manuscripts, or texts of the Byzantine text-type. I did not go into this detail in my response to you, as I couldn't ascertain from your question whether you had a deeper knowledge of this or it was simply a passing question that arose when you compared Romans 1:16 with other translations. So my apologies. Yet, what you are seeking, although a commendable enquiry, I am unable to assist you because of the nature of the research; I'm certainly not proficient in this.

To be able to get into the letters or discourses of say, the early Church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.) could be a formidable task. I hope that you will, in time & diligence, be able to source the information you seek - and if you remember us here, maybe post your findings which should make very interesting reading. Blessings.

Bible Translations

I am quite confident that the king, James Bible is the best English translation available today. It has stood the test of time.

I would never use a Bible that appears to be a paraphrase in any way whatsoever.

I would never use a Bible that contains the words of Jesus in Red. That, in and of itself, diminishes other language in the Bible, as being less authoritative, i.e. less the Word of God. The Entire Bible, every Word in the original, is the Word of God Himself.

I would never use a Bible that includes commentary along side of or even in the same volume as the Bible itself. This tends to color and influence our understanding; Whether we are conscious of that or not.

As far as trying to understand how the original languages were used at the time, that may be interesting and perhaps helpful, but is ultimately not as important as allowing the Bible to be its own dictionary. If we want to understand how God is using specific words or phrases, we need to find every location in the Bible where that word or phrase is used by God and draw our conclusion and meaning from that. God has graciously given us the tools to do exactly that if we are willing to take the time and energy to do it. And I am pointing the finger at myself as much or more as anyone else.

Hello David

Without any doubt the KJV Bible is one of the most (if not THE MOST) acceptable and read translations of the Bible in the English language.

But I would like to make a comment on translations in general.

When a translator has to translate a text from one language to another has mainly 2 options, either do 1. a word for a word translation or 2. a free translation which gives the meaning of the original language without actually going a word for a word.

Both methods have advantages and disadvantages.

1. A word for a word. Often different languages use different expressions/phrases for the same thing. Often there are no respective words. Often words seem to mean something else from what they really mean. The native speaker has a physical understanding of a scripture that a foreigner does not have when the text is translated in their language. So when a text is translated, say from grk to Eng, the English speaker is often buffled with what the text is trying to tell them. They don't understand, and so one has often a different understanding from another. On top of those, think that apostle Paul was hard to understand even by people who lived at the same time with him and spoke the same language.

2. A free translation. A translator can choose to write a translation that gives the meaning of the original text but by using different words. The advantage here is that the reader understands clearly the meaning of the text but the disadvantage is that the meaning often depends on the translator's understanding and knowledge Also it depends on the doctrines or the church they come from. All people we are affected by what we have been taught in our churches and try to fit the text to our beliefs, don't we?

So you see there are pluses and minuses in both cases. Personally I have a main Bible which I use, which is a word for a word , but I also use 2-3 different other versions when I want to clarify things. Concordances and Lexicons are also very helpful. GBU

Thank you Giannis for those thoughts.

However we must remember that we are dealing with the Word of God Himself and not the Word of Paul or Luke or Jeremiah or Isaiah. While it is true that God used Humans to pen the original Biblical texts, every word, every phrase is exactly the word and phrase that God Himself chose to use. And I would never trust a "free translation" as being the Word of God.

God did not write the Bible in a way that we can merely apply man's wisdom in reading and understanding what God is teaching. We must search it out comparing scripture with scripture. And that often means down to the very word.

My advice to anyone would be to avoid a "free translation" or paraphrase version like the plague. I would want the most faithful word for word, translation available. And based on my understanding that would be the King James Bible for an English translation.

I think there is a reason that the study tools like Strong's and Young's concordances are based on the KJV.

If we want to consult a commentary, that's fine. But a commentary may or may not have understood a given text properly and we know that going in.

God is the one and only Author of the Bible. And the Bible alone is true and trustworthy.

FYI: The KJV in many places is a 'free translation'. the LXX [Septuagint] is an even more free translation of the Hebrew and yet the apostles quote the LXX is very many places in the NT. Additionally, Paul quotes a pagan poet in Acts 17:28.

The KJV is itself went through a number of revisions. The version currently published by the Trinitarian Bible Society contains [rightly or wrongly] words and phrases found in NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT.

My earlier question re the source of the words "of Christ" in Romans 1:16 is an example of this issue.

As far as I am able to ascertain NO Greek MS has those words. The earliest I have found is in the 1519 Greek and Latin New Testament of Erasmus. Those words, "of Christ" in Romans 1:16 may be one of Erasmus's 'conjectural emendations'.

I will continue to research that source.

Allow me to add that the translation philosophy employed by the translation committees of the KJV is probably THE BEST POSSIBLE, notwithstanding the occasional failures in applying that philosophy.

NUNC VIVAMUS

Hello Scotty

The Eastern Greek Orthodox Church uses the so called Patriarcal Text for the New Testament. It is very similar to the Received Text. That text is based on the Byzantine text. The Byzantine text is the text that they were using since the foundation of that church in the 3rd centuary AD. In Rom 1:19, it contains the words "of Christ".

About manuscripts. Not all the manuscripts from ancient times survived. What we have now is a small portion of what was written. But still those small differences in the texts do not make any real difference, whether the phrase "of Christ" is true or it is a later addition it does not matter. It is the doctrines we are seeking in the Bible, not numbers and descriptions and that sort of things. We are interested in what those people knew about God and Jesus and what their beliefs were. And as far as doctrines are concerned they are all the same, whether the Received Text or the Critical or any other. So let's not spend our time in unimportant secondary things.

The Septuagint text was translated from a text that was an earlier version of the Masoretic text. Today many scholars and theologians believe that in ancient times there were many slightly different texts of the O.T. due to errors or additions and comments done during hand copying the scriptures through centuaries. Today there are 4 different texts of the O.T. plus many private translations that the early church fathers did for their own use. The 4 are, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Masoretic and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not 2 of them are completely indentical. But the differences are unimportant, they are differences in words and descriptions and numbers and that sort of things. Just for information.

Sorry, I meant Rom 1:16.

Scotty,

No translation into any language is likely to be 100% accurate in its translation. However, based on information that I trust, it is my understanding that the KJV translators used manuscripts of the original languages that were accurate. And the KJV translators endeavored to do a faithful word for word translation in so much as they used italics where they added a word here or there to make the language flow.

I am convinced that God has cared for His Word down through the centuries so that today we have tools like interlinears and concordances based on manuscripts that are accurate down to the very jot and tittle. So that we can check out the KJV translation. And there are a few instances where the KJV could have done a bit better job. But these are few and far between in my understanding.

I also believe that God has allowed information for those that want to quibble as to the Authority and Accuracy of the Word of God to their own detriment.

"Of Christ" refers to the Cross of Christ, the main subject of the entire Bible, Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. The sacrifice Jesus gave of himself on the Cross is the answer to all: our salvation, our victory, our healing, our everything.