NKJV translation error?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Dec 2, 2003.

  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I am not a KJVO man, but is a strong preference. One of the things that irritates me is the constant attempts to prove that it is a poor translation. Like it or not it is a magnificent translation.

    In my studies this week I came a cross a clear translation error, however, in the NKJV. This is not an attempt to attack the NKJV, but thought it was interesting that it is this clear.

    Look at Galatians 3v16 “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ”

    Here Paul is quoting Genesis 12v7 – “Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." And there he built an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.”

    Notice that the Holy Spirit says in Galatians that it is NOT to seeds, yet the NKJV translates the word in the plural, using descendants.

    IMHO it looks like the NKJV translators simply got this one wrong, they should have used the singular “seed” since it refers to Christ.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess either it was an honest mistake or they don't really believe Paul's writing in Galatians to be inspired or they value man's wisdom above God's.

    Another NKJV translation error:

    1 Peter 3
    3Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel--

    compare:

    1 Peter 3
    3   Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; (KJV)

    1 Peter 3
    3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. (NIV)

    1 Peter 3
    3Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing-- (ESV)

    1 Peter 3
    3   whose adorning -- let it not be that which is outward, of plaiting of hair, and of putting around of things of gold, or of putting on of garments, (YLT)

    --

    I'm sure many desperately want this verse to say what the NKJV says, but it just doesn't.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not sure whether it is a translation error or not. However, the difficulty between the passages does require an explanation.

    To the other point, the KJV doesn't really resolve this problem for us when the passage is taken in context:

    15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. 16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

    Note that in vs. 16 when "thy seed" is further explained, it is clear that the object(s) are plural.
     
  4. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no problem here with the KJV. The Holy Spirit gave us the correct intrepretation of verse 15, and the NKJV erroneously doesn't follow it. Perhaps it was a simple oversight, but it lends credence to the charge that much of the modern version movement is a result of weakened faith.

    IMO if verse 16 apears confusing, that points to problem with our understanding, not with God's Word or the KJV.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Galatians 3:16, KJV Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

    Same verse, NKJV Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.

    The KJV & NKJV say the same thing. So much for another round of Onlyist malarkey.
     
  6. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    God gave a six-fold promise to Abraham.

    One of the promises is that his physical line would inherit the land described.

    Another is that blessing would come through one seed in particular.

    It is very easy to see that Paul is arguing a theological point that the promise would only be realized through the one seed.

    A little theology never killed anyone. KJVOs are living proof.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    YOu think they should go aroudn without any outward adorning?? God forbids such states of undress. It is clear that Paul is not teaching the useless of outward adorning, but rather its insufficiency for godliness. Clearly, a woman's adorning should not be merely outward ... it should also be inward. But it is equally clear that a woman's adorning should not be only inward ... it should also be outward.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I think you should have checked the KJV, and every other version. They all say the same thing. If this is an error, then it is an error Paul himself made. The Greek reads like all the translations, including the NKJV.
     
  9. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    YOu think they should go aroudn without any outward adorning??

    Absolutely, that's exactly what God commands. BTW, what does this have to do with not being modestly dressed?
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    God did not command to go around without outward adorning. To do so would be nakedness and that is forbidden. Come on, now ... you know that ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Clothes are outward adornment. Spirituality is inward adornment.

    This is one of those issues where you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
     
  11. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Anytime a document is translated into a language and the language changes meaning the translation is no longer valid. It may have been quite accurate for the day it was translated and not accurate later when the words have changed meaning.

    So it is with the KJV.

    Just a quick example is found at Psa 50:23, 2 Cor. 1:12, Gal. 1:13, Eph. 2:3, Eph. 4:22, Phil. 1:27, Phil. 3:20.

    Phil 3:20 in the KJV, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:"

    Phil. 3:20 NASU95, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;"

    Is your conversation in heaven?

    Preachers who use the KJV can make a longer sermon when they explain the old English so people can understand it. If they would just use the NAS or something like it they wouldn't have to explain archaic words. It is already translated so that people can understand the English language today.
     
  12. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    God did not command to go around without outward adorning. To do so would be nakedness and that is forbidden. Come on, now ... you know that ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Clothes are outward adornment. Spirituality is inward adornment.

    This is one of those issues where you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
    </font>[/QUOTE]ADORN', v.t.

    1. To deck or decorate; to make beautiful; to add to beauty by dress; to deck with external ornaments.

    A bride adorneth, herself with jewels. Isa. 6.

    (Webster's 1828)

    Note well that "to adorn" does not mean "to dress". We are not commanded to avoid dressing, that's silly [​IMG] We're commanded not to adorn (i.e. beautify) ourselves externally. Modest, inexpensive and plain (non-decorative) clothing fits the bill perfectly.

    I understand that if you were to preach this, you'd likely be fired in a heartbeat, but still it's the truth.
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    So we "deflect" away from the real issue here by getting sidetracked on "adorn".

    The issue was the the NKJV was in error, and it this claim was proven to be bogus. I will await the apology for defaming the Word of God (NKJV).

    But not hold my breath!
     
  14. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
    So we "deflect" away from the real issue here by getting sidetracked on "adorn".

    It's another great example of a NKJV error in translation.

    The issue was the the NKJV was in error, and it this claim was proven to be bogus.

    I must have missed it.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    What? Genesis 12v7 in the KJV (and most other versions) clearly says "...unto thy SEED will I give this land." The mistranslation is not in Galatians, but Genesis.

    I have to laugh when you accuse me of "Onlyist malarkey." I have lost the fellowship of many men because I am not "only" enough for them. One does not need to be an "only" in order to love and prefer the KJV and to find an error in another translation. Your attack was typical of extremists on both sides of the issue :( .
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I don't think that I have posted in this forum before, and now I realise why. It appears that emotions run high here. Neither side of the KJV issue seems to be able to state a case without a personal attack on the other side. There were a couple of decent replies made and I do respect that.

    This was a legitimate, honest question. I still think that in the context the NKJV translators simply got this one wrong in Genesis. Does that mean I will throw away my MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV)? Of course not. As mentioned in the earliest post I noticed this Paul clearly says in Galatians ... "not to seeds,but to seed" and yet the NKJV specifically uses just what Paul says it doesn't say. Is it really bad theology or "onlyist malarkey" to see the difference in the two verses and question it? I think not.

    Thanks for reminding me why I don't visit this forum fellas.
     
  17. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Christ4Kildare,
    Unfortunately you are correct that the emotions do run high on this forum.

    I also consider myself KJV preferred, and you are correct that sometimes we are caught in the middle of this argument. Oh well. :cool:

    Thank you for this thread about the word or words referring to "seed" or "seeds." It is for reasons like this that I am more comfortable with the KJV. [​IMG]
     
  18. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ4Kildare said:

    I still think that in the context the NKJV translators simply got this one wrong in Genesis.

    There's the real issue. Did the NKJV authors actually translate the Hebrew underlying the Genesis passage incorrectly? I don't know one way or another, but without some kind of exegesis to make their point, all I see the KJV-onlyists doing is whining that the NKJV didn't interpret that passage to their liking (probably because it doesn't read exactly like the KJV than for any legitimate reason).
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    It seems to me that the Holy Spirit inteprets it in Galatians 3. This is the same reason we use the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7v14.

    Ransom, why do you insist on calling anyone who sees a problem with any other version an "onlyist?" I have made my position clear. If I were an "onlyist" would I be using the NKJV in my sermon preparation?
     
  20. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    You did notice that you're not the only person on this thread with a preference for the KJV, didn't you?

    Someone else's first post to thread started off by saying "D-u-u-h-h, maybe the NKJV guys don't think Paul's words were inspired." Perhaps I was talking about him rather than your quite reasonable question.
     

Share This Page

Loading...