NKJV translation error?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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 ... 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.

 

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.

 

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 ... 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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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).

 

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.