That same one that is spoken about in Acts 4:12.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Correspondence Between The Old and the New Testament obscured

MANY passages in the New Testament are quotations from the Old, or distinct allusions to it; and are designed by the Holy Spirit, who indited them, to be so understood. But the faults of the common version sometimes hide this fact entirely from view. Some examples will render this clear. The common version reads thus: {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.11}

Exodus 24:8. - Behold THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT which the Lord hath made with you. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.12}

Hebrews 9:20. - This is THE BLOOD OF THE TESTAMENT which the Lord hath enjoined unto you. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.13}

If any one could possibly imagine what "the blood of a testament," that is, a will, may be, he would hardly detect in it the allusion designed to "the blood of the covenant" spoken of in Exodus. The preliminary revision of the Bible Union removes all obscurity from the passages. No such word as "testament" appears in the whole chapter, but in every case the original term is translated "covenant," and the whole connection of the argument and all the allusions to the Old Testament or Old Covenant scriptures, are thus rendered manifest and striking. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.14}

In a similar way the allusions to the Old Testament history in Acts 7:45, and Hebrews 4:8, are completely destroyed in the common version, and totally erroneous ideas conveyed, by the name JESUS being used in both cases instead of Joshua. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.15}

The remarkable coincidence in the teachings of the Old and New Testament in very numerous passages, has never been fully brought out in an English version. No translator can do full justice to the one without being familiar with the other. They require the most careful comparison, and the faults of both must be removed to make that comparison just. Wherever the words of the original will permit, the phraseology of the translation should have the same form in both Testaments. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.16}

Hosea 11:1, and Matthew 2:15, might readily be made to correspond in the translation. Both could be "Out of Egypt have I called my son," or both, "I have called my son out of Egypt." There is no necessity or propriety in having one in one form, and the other in a different form. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.17}

Hosea 6:6. I DESIRED mercy and not sacrifice. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.18}

Matthew 9:13. I WILL HAVE mercy and not sacrifice. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.19}

Here the Greek word THELO is translated WILL HAVE, instead of desire, which is a more accurate translation, and corresponds with that of the Old Testament. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.20}

Psalm 22:18. AND CAST LOTS UPON MY VESTURE. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.21}

Matthew 27:35. AND UPON MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.22}

There is nothing in the Greek to prevent the last quotation being rendered in accordance with the Old Testament - "And cast lots upon my vesture." {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.23}

To make this case still worse in the common version, the very same Greek words are translated in John 19:24 - AND FOR MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS. - Bible Union. {April 23, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 179.24}

Actually, the real question should be, how is Joshua translated in Greek?

The name Jesus is given may have been based, meaning-wise, on the name given to Joshua in the Old Testament. It was not, however, the same word. ALL of the occurrences of "Jesus" in the New Testament are the same Greek word (in the KJV, at least). So if the NIV chooses to vary their translation, of this word, upon what basis do they feel they have such authority?

If the NIV believes that the Greek "Iēsous" should be translated as "Joshua" (Hebrew: "Yĕhowshuwa`") in English, then we should not see any occurrence of the word "Jesus" in their translation. If, however, they recognize that "Jesus" is the proper translation, they have clearly deviated from this in Hebrews 4:8.

Those are the facts. The NIV has meddled with their translation either way one argues. The KJV, meanwhile, has maintained consistency.

Another germane question to ask at this point would be: If "Joshua" and "Jesus" are names that are linked in the Bible, why does Mrs. White never say that one is derived from the other?

There is no "Joshua" in the Greek.

Here is what the SDABC says on Hebrews 4:8:
[quote]The English name Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew equivalent of Joshua (see on Matt. 1:1). . . Joshua did, indeed, give Israel literal 'rest" in Canaan, that is, he led them in a successful conquest and settlement of considerable portions of the land. . .[/quest]

The issue that has been raised here is founded on a failure to distinguish between the words "translation" and "transliteration."

Green talks about the NIV translating the words Jesus and Joshua. Actually in his citations the NIV does not translate those words. What the NIV does is transliterate those words in the places where Green has cited them. The SDABC is accurate in its statement that in the cited reference it is a transliteration.

The error that Green has made is a very common one that is often made by people who are commenting on textual issues and issues of Biblical translation and fail to understand the basics. Green is correct in some of what he says. But, he has made a fundamental error in his failure to distinguish between the meanings of "translation" and "transliteration." The meanings of those two words are quite different. They are not even close.

I will also recommend that people interested in this see the SDABC comment on Matthew 1:1.