When the NKJV departs from the TR

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by jbh28, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many KJV Only Advoctes have claimed that the NKJV isn't a real TR translation. Gail Riplinger claims 1200 times. Askjo has claimed 800. Between the two, zero examples have been given. There is one possible example of a change in the NKJV (robe vs robes) that was given. Let's just say for the time that is an example. So we how have 1 out of 1200 or .083%. That's not really good.

    Here are some examples from the internet that attempt to show deviations from the TR by the NKJV. http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvdepartsfromtr.htm

    1. Matthew 5:37 “But let your COMMUNICATION be, Yea, Yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh OF EVIL.”

    The Greek texts read: ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν.


    First of all, there is no textual variant in this verse. So that alone shows that this is not an example. Secondly, the "communication" is understood and thus the NKJV translators thought it not necessary to supply the English word there. The word is given in the context. This is allowed in translating, though not as literal as actually putting the word.

    Level: Mostly False
    (rating like the politifact does it)

    0 for 1
     
    #1 jbh28, Aug 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2011
  2. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 18:26

    2. Matt 18:26 (KJV) The servant therefore fell down, AND WORSHIPPED HIM, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

    Matt 18:26 (NKJV) "The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' (NASV, NIV, NRSV) The word “worshipped him” is in all Greek texts the Geneva Bible and even in the Revised Version and the American Standard Version. The NKJV just chose to omit it as did the RSV, NASB, and NIV.


    Well, there are many errors here.

    the NASB reads ""So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him" "prostrated" is the literal translation of the Greek word that the KJV translators used with "worshiped"

    The NKJV translates it as "fell down before him." That is their translation of the term proskuneō. Not even close to a deviation from the TR.


    Level: False

    0 for 2
     
  3. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    At long last, Will Kinney makes an appearance.
     
  4. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 18:35

    3. Matthew 18:35, “if ye from your hearts forgive not everyone his brother THEIR trespasses”. Majority and C have “their trespasses”, but the Sinaticus and Vaticanus omit, so ‘their’ is not in the RSV, NASB or NIV. However the NKJV says, “HIS trespasses”, and ‘his’ is not found in any manuscript. “Their” trespasses is found in other Bibles which are based on the Textus Receptus of the KJB, as are Tyndale, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva, and Young’s translation.

    This is a grammar issue. "everyone" requires a singular "his" so in translating the correct grammar is used.

    Level: Half True
    "his" is in the plural in the TR, but there is not a CT reading of "his" so the NKJV simply choose in translating into English to use proper grammar.

    0 for 3
     
  5. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    He got smoked the other day on the Dividing Line by White.
     
  6. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 22:10

    4. Matthew 22:10, “THE WEDDING was furnished with guests”. The “wedding” is ‘o gamos’, and is found in the majority, D, B(2), Tyndale, and Geneva; but Sinaticus says ‘o numphon’, the “wedding hall”. The NKJV follows the RSV, NASB, NIV with “wedding hall”.

    What's missing is that the NKJV puts "hall" in italics indicating that their text did not include the word "hall." (actually, its only one word with one meaning wedding(TR) and wedding hall(CT))

    The Wedding hall is specifically what was decorated. The Wedding is the event.

    Level: Half True
    I'll give it half true because they do use "Wedding hall" which is the TR reading, but only half because they put it in Italics and simply showing the more specific area that was decorated.
     
  7. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 24:13

    5. Matthew 24:13, “But he that endureth unto the end, THE SAME shall be saved.” The word for THE SAME here is ‘houtos’ and is rendered as ‘the same’ in Tyndale, the R.V., ASV, and others. This word adds emphasis, and the NASB reads, “It is he who shall be saved.” The NKJV joins the NIV in omitting this word, and says merely, “But he who endures to the end shall be saved.”

    The phrase "the same" is totally unnecessarily in English as worded in the NKJV. There are no textual variants in the passage.

    Level: Mostly False
     
  8. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    As with all discussions of "deviations" from the underlying text, listing a number without listing the number of chances provides subjective rather than objective evidence. Next, deviations that do not alter the message are what I call nits and of not much significance unless collectively it demonstrates the practice of unnecessary substitution. Translators should be sworn to translate what it says, not what they think it means, at least the ones making an effort at a literal translation.
     
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Actually, "communication" is not understood, but translates logos in Matt. 5:7, and is perfectly legitimate.
     
  10. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure what you were saying. How are they translating "logos"?
     
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    They translated logos as "communication." This is legitimate because logos has a very wide range of meaning.
     
  12. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Rather than translating within the loosest range possible, i.e. legitimate, it is appropriate to compare translation versions based on what seems the most literal. A dynamic translation, changing the word meanings as necessary to translate the translators understanding of the "thought" is legitimate but not literal.

    In Matthew 5:37, logos is translated as "communication" by the KJV and the NKJV. This is simply a dynamic translation rather than a literal one. YLT has it let your word be Yea....
    The NASB translates it as "statement." Over versions have "what you say."

    The KJV usually translates logos as "word" over 200 times, and so this example simply illustrates a lack of concordance with the usual and most frequent Greek to English translation. Some might say the deviation was driven by context, but the KJV also translates logos as "saying" about 50 times, and that would fit the context even better than communication which is apparently only used one or two times in the KJV.
     
    #12 Van, Aug 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2011
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    You need to check your more recent lexicons. BAGD has "wedding hall" for one meaning of gamos, as do the Friberg's Analytical Lexicon and Louw-Nida (which I'm not fond of).
     
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    "Communication" is not a dynamic translation of logos by any means, but a perfectly legitimate literal one. Stop trying to pretend you know Greek. It really casts you in a bad light.
    Question: Since you don't know Greek, am I right in assuming that you don't have any lexicons, and also cannot compare Greek usage other than the NT? If this be so, how in the ever-loving, cotton-picking blue-eyed world (that's a quote from the immortal Pogo) can you sit there at your keyboard and actually try to tell us how logos should be translated? That's totally ridiculous.

    I came about my Greek knowledge the hard way: many credit hours in college and seminary, learning two Japanese textbooks of Greek to teach to my students in Tokyo and Hokkaido, translating several books of the Greek NT into English and the whole NT into Japanese, reading through various grammars. It takes many hundreds of hours to learn a language properly. So how can you pretend to know Greek when you don't? Come on, try to humble yourself and learn instead of pontificating as if you knew the language.
     
    #14 John of Japan, Aug 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2011
  15. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Be careful JoJ, telling Van that he doesn't know Greek (or Hebrew) is an assault on his character. Since it is honestly the truth, we don't need to be bothered with such details.
     
  16. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    According to my NIV Exhaustive concordance, "logos" appears in the Greek text 331 times, and the NIV does not translate it about 15 times. Now word, words, say and saying are used about 180 times. Message, account, teaching and speech are also used numerous times adding to a total of about 50 more. Then a whole bunch of additional words, over 3 dozen, are used to blur the message.

    This is particularly interesting when studying a verse (Matthew 5:37) which says we should be clear, saying yes or no, and not adding to it, i.e. waffling, and turning logos into a vague concept which includes, no kidding, eloquence.
     
    #16 Van, Aug 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2011
  17. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi John of Japan, please stop addressing my qualifications and character to disparage my positions. Your constant use of this logical fallacy demeans your reputation as a seeker of truth.

    Of course I have access to lexicons, the Blue Letter Bible site for example. And I have my exhaustive concordance of the NIV. Plus both hard copy and on line interlinears.

    Why is "communication" dynamic. Again, lets agree or disagree on what I mean when I use this word. My yes is yes or no, I do not waffle and embellish the meaning.

    I as said in my post, a dynamic translation translates the thought and no necessarily the literal word meanings. Here, Matthew 5:37 the idea is what we say should be black and white, yes or no, and not vague leaving weasel room. So "communication" captures the thought. But logos means what is said, words and sayings and the content thereof, ie. statement or message. I like the HCSB version, let your word yes be yes, no be no....
    Says the same thing yet is more literal and concordant.
     
    #17 Van, Aug 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2011
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    I see I missed one of your actual points, John of Japan. Yes you are right in assuming I do not compare usages of Greek words except from scripture, so for Greek from the New Testament. And I certainly agree that a professional translator would need to evaluate all the usages found in the language. I am well aware of the non scriptural references that appear in Thayers, to support a meaning of the Greek word under study.

    I place more importance on the scriptural usages, because that is the text I am interested in. So there you have it, Sir.
     
    #18 Van, Aug 15, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2011
  19. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Now lets see if John of Japan actually can study word meanings?

    How many different Greek words does the NIV translate into the English word "word(s)."

    Basically two, rhema and logos. What is distinctively different in the meaning such that Matthew would use rhema rather than logos or vice versa.

    Now I want insight and not insult.
     
  20. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I'm not John of Japan, but his criticism of you isn't a logical fallacy. (Frankly two thirds of the stuff people around here claim is a logical fallacy isn't actual so but anyways)

    You are making very specific criticisms about the nature of translations and the impact of the language used in contemporary translations. Yet you don't know the original languages. Your position is highly assailable since you are attempting expert levels claims without any requisite expert level knowledge.

    It's like this guy I know who loves to gripe about the legal system and gives out "free legal advice" to people. Yet he doesn't have a law degree and most of his observations are wrong. He has been cited several times by legal authorities because of the dangerous council he gives to people. He believes that he is absolutely correct, yet all of his observations are based on an inability to understand the foundations of the law.
     

Share This Page

Loading...