In her tract attacking and misrepresenting the NKJV, Gail Riplinger claimed that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 by having the rendering "Joshua" instead of having the rendering "Jesus" as the KJV does. Part of this tract was also published in the Church Bus News (April-June, 1996, p. 26). Riplinger had earlier claimed that the “new versions use dynamic equivalencies frequently, such as translating ‘Jesus’ as “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 127). Riplinger and Beebe asserted that “the NKJV even turns ‘Jesus’ into “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (Church Bus News, July-Sept., 2002, p. 17). Peter Ruckman claimed that Acts 7:45 "has been purposely mistranslated in the ASV and New ASV as 'Joshua'" (Problem Texts, p. 338).
“The most fundamental presupposition of the philological method in Biblical exegesis is that all exegesis must be done in the original languages if it is to be competent and trustworthy exegesis…
The interpreter who interprets Scripture only in his modern language is always working with a linguistic veil between himself and original texts. And he never knows how thin or how thick this veil is.” – Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation
Neither Dr. Petey nor God And seem to grasp that context (hated by all KJV-onlyists) indicates which individual is spoken of, not the specific orthography of the name, and thus they are going ballistic over nothing.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Minion of BASSENCO<<< as outed by Shiloh
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
Were the KJV translators following a Jehovah Witnesses' reading when they stated in the margin of the 1611 concerning their reading "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 the following: "That is Joshua"? A mark by "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 in the Geneva Bible referred to this marginal note: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun." Waite's Defined KJB gave the following note for "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8: "i.e. Joshua (Heb equivalent of Jesus)" (p. 1589). At this verse in his multi-volume commentary, KJV-only author David Sorenson wrote: “The New Testament name Jesus is also a translation of the Old Testament name Joshua. Clearly, it is Joshua at the end of the exodus which is so referred to here” (p. 32).
Riplinger did not share with her readers that several of the early good Bibles have this same rendering as the NKJV. At Hebrews 4:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, Taverner's, and Whittingham's have "Joshua." At Acts 7:45, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "Joshua." Were the majority of the earlier 1500's English Bibles which have "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 copying the 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Did the old Peshitta Syriac follow a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? The Peshitta even adds "the son of Nun" to make sure that it is clear that Joshua is referred to in Hebrews 4:8. Did John Wesley in 1754 copy a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime have "Josua" (Joshua) at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Would Peter Ruckman claim that William Tyndale and Martin Luther purposely mistranslated Acts 7:45? Would Ruckman claim that Tyndale’s and Luther’s Bible were “inferior” translations produced by critics?
And of course every modern (19th-21st century) version which correctly gives "Joshua" in the text at Hebrews 4:8 is copying or following the New World Translation too!
The 1808 translation by Charles Thomson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and secretary of the Continental Congress, has "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 as did the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists. The 1866 American Bible Union New Testament has "Joshua" in both these verses. The 1833 Webster's Bible has the center column note "or, Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and "That is, Joshua" at Hebrews 4:8. The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible has the center column note "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. The 1657 Dutch Annotations has at Jesus at Acts 7:45 the following: “That is Joshua, the son of Nun, whereby we see that the names Joshua and Jesus are all one name.” Concerning Acts 7:45 in his commentary, David Sorenson asserted: “The Jesus mentioned in verse 45 is a reference to Joshua” (p. 365).
The fact should be obvious that a 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version did not even exist when the old Syriac, Luther's German Bible, and several of the early English Bibles had the reading "Joshua" in these verses. It is also interesting to note that Wally Beebe's 1975 Bus Worker's Edition of the KJV has "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45 and that it has a note listing "Joshua" as an alternative translation at the end of Hebrews 4:8. Would Riplinger say that Beebe's Bus Worker's Bible copied from the Jehovah Witnesses? The Liberty Annotated Study Bible [KJV], the Criswell Study Bible [KJV], and the Rice Reference Bible [KJV] also have "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45.
The evidence is clear and overwhelming that it was wrong and false to claim that the NKJV copies the Jehovah Witnesses' Version at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Check these verses in my second appendix. For Jesus at Acts 7:45, The Rock of Ages Study Bible has this note: “Not our Lord, but Joshua, who succeeded Moses. Joshua is a shorter form of the Hebrew name Jehoshua. Jesus is the Greek name for Joshua, just as Henry is the English spelling of the German name Heinrich” (p. 1535). In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, G. Campbell Morgan observed that "Jesus is merely the Anglicising of the Greek name; and the Greek name rendered Jesus is the Greek form of a very well known and common Hebrew name, Joshua; and Joshua is really an abbreviation of the name Jehoshua" (p. 40). In his commentary on Acts, J. Vernon McGee noted about 7:45: "Jesus in this passage refers to Joshua. Joshua is the Hebrew name, and Jesus is the Greek" (p. 83). In his 1857 commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander stated: "Jesus, the Septuagint form of Joshua, occurs also in Heb. 4:8, and in both cases creates some confusion in the minds of English readers" (p. 294). Bullinger maintained that “Jesus=Joshua, the son of Nun” at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 (Lexicon, pp. 422-423). In his commentary on Acts, H. A. Ironside wrote: "The word 'Jesus' here of course is really Joshua. It is the same name, but we somehow think of 'Jesus' as applying only to our blessed Saviour" (p. 173). Concerning this verse in the 1839 Baptist edition of the Comprehensive Commentary edited by William Jenks and Joseph Warne, this is stated: “The tabernacle was brought in by those who came with Jesus, that is, Joshua, as, for distinction-sake, and to prevent mistakes, it ought to be read, both here and Hebrews 4:8” (p. 38). The ABS’s Committee on Versions commented: “Thus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, we find the name Jesus, which the common reader will naturally refer only to the Saviour; while in reality it is simply the Greek form for Joshua, and should properly have been so written” (Statements, p. 7). It could also be noted that the New Testament used the name "Jesus" to refer to a man also called "Justus" (Col. 4:11).
Hebrews 4:8
For if Jesus had given them rest,
then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Acts 7:45
Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
A mark by "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 in the Geneva Bible referred to this marginal note: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun."
And if Rick had given the full note, the typology aspect of the verse translation decision would come to the fore.
John Gill, after pointing out that the literal person pointed to is Joshua, shares:
http://www.pbministries.org/Landmark...xpo_chap04.htm
"Joshua ..was an eminent type of Jesus Christ. There is an agreement in their names, both signify a saviour, Joshua was a temporal saviour, Christ a spiritual one; and in their office they were both servants; and in their qualifications for their office, such as wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and integrity. Joshua was a type of Christ in many actions of his life; in the miracles he wrought, or were wrought for him; in the battles he fought, and the victories he obtained."
John Gill on Acts 7:45
that is, they having received the tabernacle from their fathers, brought it into the land of Canaan, which was possessed by the Gentiles, when they entered into it with Joshua their leader, and captain, at the head of them; who is here called Jesus, as he is in (Hebrews 4:8) for Joshua and Jesus are the same name, and signify a saviour; for such an one Joshua was to the people of Israel; and was an eminent type of Jesus Christ, the captain of our salvation, in his bringing many sons to glory:
As Will Kinney aptly shared.
The King James Bible and all the others are not in error, as some allege. Rather it gives a literal translation of the Greek name Joshua, and reveals the "type" or divine foreshadowing of the fulfillment which was completed in the Son of God.
The critique of the Gail Riplinger - NWT issue (using these verses) above is fine, albeit of minor significance on this forum.
The King James Bible verses are the pure word of God, with Gill and Will sharing unto the translation aspect squarely.
There was no "copying" from the JW Bible or any other. Modern translations, at least as far back as the English Revision of 1881, treated these are references to Joshua, the successor of Moses, as indeed the context dictates. The Greek form of Joshua is Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth was given the same name as the successor of Moses.
The KJV is not very good when it comes to OT names in the NT. Elias should have been rendered Elijah to make the references recognizable, and similarly with some other names, but this was not done in the KJV.
The KJV is not very good when it comes to OT names in the NT. Elias should have been rendered Elijah to make the references recognizable, and similarly with some other names, but this was not done in the KJV.
And I always get a when folks who do not even have the pure and perfect Bible to read say what "should have" been translated here and there.
The King James Bible made a very clear and proper decision to directly transliterate the names it received in Greek. Rather than translate them through the Hebrew identity.
Now, it is true that this caused Joseph Smith once to trip up. Also a lot of folks would like to retranslate Jesus through his "Hebrew name Yeshua" or another variant. Folks come up with all sorts of ideas.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Did NKJV copy Jehovah Witness Version at Acts 7:45?
when folks who do not even have the pure and perfect Bible to read say what "should have" been translated here and there.
Linear Mode
