OK...I'm being picky....

I'm pretty sure this is a case of "we tag it as the publisher publishes it" but I just wanted to voice my opinion. I was reading along and came to John 8:33 in the NKJV and it says "...How can you say, <red letters>You will be made free?</red letters>. some translations do not mark these red, some do. Why should they be marked red? these are not words being spoken by Christ, but the translation of those speaking concerning what Christ said. I find it particularly odd because the KJV does not have the words red while the NKJV does. I just find that a poor choice.

OK. Climbing off my soap box.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Friedrich

yup, it's surefire case of the pickinosis. Or picki-gnosis? perhaps pick ye noses.

ooops. wrong forum. can anyone direct me to "How to properly . . .":

Gary O'Neal

Why should they be marked red? these are not words being spoken by Christ, but the translation of those speaking concerning what Christ said.

Wouldn't this be the same as the decision to mark "It's more blessed to give than to receive" in Acts 20:35, where Paul is speaking?

Pat Flanakin

As long as the words are right, I would ignore the red as it is a crutch.

Gary O'Neal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/96498#Comment_96498

As long as the words are right, I would ignore the red as it is a crutch.

I think Red Letter editions have a place, but I agree with your sentiment. I knew a guy who would only read the red letter parts of the gospels because he felt that they were better than the other parts. It's almost as if he viewed them as magical.

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/96505#Comment_96505

I think Red Letter editions have a place, but I agree with your sentiment. I knew a guy who would only read the red letter parts of the gospels because he felt that they were better than the other parts. It's almost as if he viewed them as magical.

You're right there. I have a lady in my parish (Banff, Scotland) who only believes that what Jesus said is true scripture, "because it's the Word of the Lord". All the rest she regards as just commentary around it. I have been trying to get her to see that "All Scripture is God breathed …" but of course, (you guessed it) she doesn't accept that verse because the Lord Jesus didn't say it! [:S]

Terry Poperszky

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/96498#Comment_96498

I would ignore the red as it is a crutch.

As are those pesky verse things, I prefer my scripture un-adulterated by man made additions! [6]

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/96527#Comment_96527

You're right there. I have a lady in my parish (Banff, Scotland) who only believes that what Jesus said is true scripture, "because it's the Word of the Lord". All the rest she regards as just commentary around it. I have been trying to get her to see that "All Scripture is God breathed …" but of course, (you guessed it) she doesn't accept that verse because the Lord Jesus didn't say it!

of course if that standard is the correct one then you can trust none of the Bible because the "red letters" we currently have are not directly recorded by Christ, so how can we be sure the gospel writers recorded them correctly. In essence, they are as much "commentary" as everything else. If Jesus gave his Holy Spirit (which the red letters say he did), and the Holy Spirit guided them to accurately record the red letters, why would he not also inspire them to accurately record the Word's of God not spoken through the mouth of Christ?