2 Tim 2:15

I think that the word "study" was used to mean something different in 1600s english than its meaning to us in english today. Changing the translation to "be diligent" more accurately reflects the original meaning in greek to us today in english than the word "study" does. In fact, the word "study" in our 21st century understanding is not what Paul originally meant to convey. Another example of this is the command to "study to be quiet" found in I Thess 4:11. Here again, the NKJV translates this as "aspire to be quiet". This change is also an improved translation, IMHO.

Language changes over time. The english language is changing so rapidly that more translation updates will be needed in the future beyond the ones we already have. As english changes, the old KJV will become more and more inadequate to communicate to the modern man.

 

I'm neither pro-KJV nor anti-KJV, but since this is a language issue, I decided to comment.

spoudazo is translated "Do thy diligence" by the KJV translators in 2 Tim 4:9 but "study" at 2:15.

The problem is one of consistency.

 

The Webster's 1828 Dictionary states (my bold) --

STUDY, v.i. [L.]

1. To fix the mind closely upon a subject; to muse; to dwell upon in thought.

I found a moral first, and then studied for a fable.

2. To apply the mind to books. He studies eight hours in the day.

3. To endeavor diligently.

That ye study to be quiet and do your own business. 1 Thessalonians 4:11
​

 

Ann, you were right on with this research; it makes you "scholar" enough in my opinion.

 

Why change the word study? I thought all the NKJV did was to get rid of all the thees and the thous and the withersoever thou goest's? ... [/QUOTE]

When you have a question, you may find the answer and much information available in the BB Archives. Here is is a link to a discussion of this verse from 2002 --

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=16603

 

So what is wrong with "Be diligent" at 2 Tim 2:15?

 

As already noted, the NKJV's rendering at 2 Timothy 2:15 is consistent with the way that the KJV translators themselves usually translated the same Greek word.

Interestingly, the KJV translators themselves had mended a similar use of "study" in Hebrews 4:11 in the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. "Study" at Acts 24:16 in Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, and 1568 Bishops' was changed to "endeavour" in the 1557 Whittingham's and 1560 Geneva and to "exercise" in the KJV. The Greek word spoudazo translated “study” (2 Tim. 2:15) was also translated the following other ways by the KJV translators: endeavour (Eph. 4:3, 1 Thess. 2:17, 2 Pet. 1:15), do diligence (2 Tim. 4:9, 21), be diligent (Titus 3:12, 2 Pet. 3:14), give diligence (2 Pet. 1:10), be forward (Gal. 2:10), and labour (Heb. 4:11). Could the KJV’s built-in definition for study be considered “be diligent?“

Even KJV-only advocate David Cloud gives the meaning of "study" in this verse as "to give diligence to" (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 425; Concise KJB Dictionary, p. 84). Waite's Defined KJB gave the following note or definition for "study" at 2 Timothy 2:15: "Gk be diligent" (p. 1579). The 1755 Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language as well as the 1828 Webster's Dictionary gave as one meaning of the verb study: "to endeavour diligently." The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible began the text of 2 Timothy 2:15 as follows: "Give diligence."

 

The KJV translated spoudazo "study" at 2:15

and then, "be diligent" at 4:9.


This info tells me that they could have translated spoudazo "be diligent" at 2:15.

 

In the Preface, the Translators expressly addressed nitpicking one-must-always-translate-a-word-in-exactly-the-same-way criticisms:

"An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie. But, that we should expresse the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveiling; if one where Thinke, never Suppose; if one where Paine, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladnesse, &c. Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to savour more of curiositie then wisedome, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously?"

 

franklinmonroe said:

The definition you give is the fouth possibility in a dictionary that is almost 200 years old! This is not the modern use of the word "study" which is why the NKJV translators changed the translation and were wise to do so.

 

I can be diligent in my endeavor without any study, but I can study to be diligent with a purpose and a plan.

"Study" requires reference and consideration, while diligence and aspire only require dedication to a cause.

The NKJV renderings of the Greek actually harm the reader in the lack of offering the believer to know what is the mind of God.

Language changes, but God and His intent never have, never will.

As evil men and seducers change,along with their language, the word of God should remain the same, y'know, just as God remains the same.:godisgood:

 

So you think the man of God should only be diligent and not accustomed to study?:laugh:

 

What did the word "incontinent" mean in 1611?

What does it mean today?

 

No,the problem is the lack of understanding the context.:godisgood:

 

The goal of translators should be to take a word in it's orginal language and convey it's meaning in the language of the common man in the day in which it is translated.

If "spoudazo" means "be diligent" in today's venacular, then modern versions are correct.

 

It is not actually being argued that the same word in the original language must always be translated exactly the same way every time or in a different context, especially when the word in the original language seems to have been used with a different meaning in the other context.

On the other hand, just because the KJV translators made an argument to justify or excuse their use of variation in rendering is not evidence that such variation was always best or right.

Are you suggesting that use or repetition of the same word in English is somehow worse than the use or repetition of the same word in the original language given by inspiration to the prophet or apostle?

John Eadie asked: "If the apostle selected the term and deemed it necessary to repeat it as fitting to his thought, and did not introduce any variation, why should any version court variety?" (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 408).