Adding words for clarity

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TCassidy, Jan 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,374
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    Does adding a word to the text of the bible destroy the veracity of that bible? Askjo said to me, "Why did you lie by denying that the NKJV ADD, “God” on Acts 7:5? God, “theo” was not in the TR on Acts 7:5?" If the fact that the NKJV adds the word "God" in Acts 7:5 when "theos" is not in any Greek text invalidates that bible, does the fact that the KJV adds the word "God" when the word "elohim" or "theos" is not in any Hebrew or Greek text in 24 places make the KJV 24 times as wrong as the NKJV?

    Also, does the inclusion of all the italicized words, several thousand of them, in the KJV with no Hebrew or Greek textual support invalidate the KJV as a truthful bible?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    Of course not Doc. I do like the way the KJV used italics for those words however. I would like to see them italicised or bracketed, or otherwise set off in some way.
     
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,374
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    But in the case of "God" being added 24 times in the KJV without italics, doesn't that constitute the same "error" Askjo accuses the NKJV of making?
     
  4. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use the KJV, my parents and my grandparents use the KJV. The italicized words helped to bring light to the scripture verse one was reading.

    For instance, Luke 6:29 would read like this without the words in italics.

    Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not coat also.

    While the verse can be read and understood, there is better clarity with the italicized words included.

    Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also.

    Of course, we could go back to Wycliffe's 1534 Bible, it reads as such:

    Luke 6:29 And to him that smytith thee on o cheeke, schewe also the tothir; and fro hym that takith awei fro thee a cloth, nyle thou forbede the coote.
     
  5. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    TCassidy, can one be sure that God was indeed added when it should not have been? Could it be that those who claim to have some older manuscripts to cause text to be omitted be wrong?

    I am not sold on all these different versions and translations that are popping up all over. I cannot place faith in paraphrases and translations that remove key words, remove the deity in many verses, remove the blood, remove whole passages.

    It is just strange that so many are popping up and claiming to be the true word of God.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    It all depends on whether or not we agree that it is an "error" or just clarifying the text for the English reader.

    My preference would be that all words not in the texts be signified.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    Translating a sentence from one language to another sometimes causes problems.

    You could read, Yo habla piñata in Spanish and translate it as "I have a pinata."
    (I hope that's close, last time used took spanish was high school :rolleyes: )

    OR you could say, "I have a paper mache-shaped animal filled with sweets and small toys."

    Sometimes a more dynamic translation is helpful.

    Rob
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    None of us would have any use for versions or paraphrases that truly do that.

    The subject of this thread however is adding words for clarification.
     
  9. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Adding to for clarity is certainly not a sin. If it helps one to understand what the scripture is saying.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,374
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    Yes. We can be absolutely sure. The Greek reads "μὴ γένοιτο" in every instance in the NT but the KJV translators added the word "God" in every case.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but Askjo tells me that the NKJV doing exactly the same thing makes the NKJV a (forbidden word on the BB).

    I believe that, if it is okay for the KJV to do it, it is okay for the NKJV to do the same thing. [​IMG]

    [snipped in the interesting of keeping the debate peaceful]

    [ January 16, 2006, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,565
    Likes Received:
    4
    Another example is the oft-discussed Psalm 12:7 thingie. Neither the Geneva,(him) the KJV,(them) nor several other versions(us, all of us, every one of them)is incorrect. (Just a reminder; this subject need not be discussed here again unless a new poster brings it up.)

    The phrase "God forbid" is added to the KJV's text several times; this phrase is quite different from the Greek "me ginomai", but 'God forbid' was a stronger negative than "may it not be" in Elizabethan vernacular and thus is correct.


    Bottom line is, I see nothing wrong with adding words for clarity in ANY version where a verbatim literal translation would be garbled in the target language of the translation. After all, the words of the ms being translated would be meaningless to most of us; hence the reason for the translation being made.

    I agree with DC that there's clearly a double standard employed by certain advocates of certain BVs or doctrines, and that this DS includes trying to force everyone to use certain words whose meanings have changed over the years, trying to fit those new meanings into an older text. This is the same as putting new wine into old skins.

    Do any of our multi-lingual readers know if words are often added when translating an English work into another language?
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,374
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    Don't you mean "snipped in the interest of keeping the truth from being told?"
     
  13. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not against words being added for clarity. I think that it is perfectly all right.
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    This thread raises some interesting questions.

    Were all the added words actually in italics in the 1611 edition? Later KJV editors actually changed many words not in italics in the 1611 edition to italics. For example, the Gospel of Matthew in the 1611 edition is said to have 43 words in italics while the 1762 Cambridge edition is said to have 352 words in italics and the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener is said to have over 500 words in italics.

    It also suggests an inconsistency in the KJV-only view since words added for clarity in the KJV are accepted and even commended while words added for clarity in other translations are usually condemned.

    What was the source of some of these added words in the KJV? Since the KJV was a revision of the Bishops' Bible according to the rules given the KJV translators, it is the most likely source of some of these added words.

    Blackford Condit maintained that "the text of the Bishops' Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text" (HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 286).

    If the KJV kept some of the added words for clarity in the Bishops' Bible, should it have kept them all? Based on what greater authority and on what consistent basis did the KJV translators remove added words found in the Bishops' Bible at some verses but keep the added words at other verses?
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    24 places? Tom, please provide me all 24 passages. I want to look at them.
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,374
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    Ge 44:7 And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:

    Ge 44:17 And he said, God forbid that I should do so: but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get you up in peace unto your father.

    Jos 22:29 God forbid that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn this day from following the LORD, to build an altar for burnt offerings, for meat offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of the LORD our God that is before his tabernacle.

    Jos 24:16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;

    1Sa 12:23 Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:

    1Sa 14:45 And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.

    1Sa 20:2 And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.

    1Ch 11:19 And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.

    Job 27:5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.

    Lu 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

    Ro 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

    Ro 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

    Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

    Ro 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

    Ro 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    Ro 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

    Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

    Ro 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    Ro 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

    1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

    Ga 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

    Ga 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

    Ga 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
     
  17. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,016
    Likes Received:
    148
    Nope. Luke translates the Aramaic statement of Jesus, "Talitha cumi," as simply, "Maid, arise" (Luke 8:54). However, Mark adds a couple of words for clarity with, "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise" (Mark 5:41).
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,374
    Likes Received:
    1,166
    John, you seem to have misunderstood the question. Both Luke 8:54 and Mark 5:41 faithfully translate the Greek text and neither of them add words to the English translation. The OP was whether or not the translators adding words destroys the veracity of the bible translation which is what Askjo was claiming about the NKJV. I was just seeing if he applied the same standard to the KJV, which does the same thing.
     
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,016
    Likes Received:
    148
    No, TCassidy, I didn't misunderstand the question. My failure was in not presenting my point well enough.

    I was trying to come in on your side by showing that, when inspired Scripture translates within itself in this instance, Mark adds words for clarity when Luke did not. Thus, in my mind, based on this Biblical example, it is sometimes appropriate to add words for clarity when translating (whether it be in a MV or the KJV).

    I wasn't referring to how English translations translate the Greek text here, I was referring to how the Biblical authors Luke and Mark translate the Aramaic original (given by Mark) of Jesus into the original Greek of the NT, Mark gives a more free translation than Luke does, adding words for clarity.

    It does not follow, of course, that Mark is using dynamic equivalence here. He had perfectly good reasons for adding words for clarity, since in the original Aramaic of Jesus, "damsel" was emphatic, and "arise" was in the imperative.

    Perhaps I should include the Greek original. Luke's Greek translation of the Aramaic statment of Jesus is, "H pais egeirou."

    Mark's version is actually quite different: "To korasion soi legw egeirai."
     
  20. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rob,

    Thanks for a belly laugh! You said (to translate) 'I (He) speaks (a) piñata.' Thanks to you I now need a new keyboard.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...