1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

One Bible only, which one!

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by tfisher1, Mar 8, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 5 of 5
  1. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to BibleGateway.com it does not show the italics on the NKJV.
    Look up Oxford dictionary.
     
    #81 Askjo, May 17, 2005
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why? The exact words are there in the Koine or they are not. I can read the Greek and the words ("God forbid") are not there, I don't need an non-inspired English reference book to convince me that they are somehow hidden (or whatever) in the inspired text under the mask of functional equivalency (which has its place as does the the Matthew 15:5 of God).

    Again it has to do NOT with the textual family from which is being translated into English but acceptable translational practices.

    You made the claim that the NKJV does not follow the TR, but by that standard you laid down neither then does the KJV.

    HankD
     
    #82 HankD, May 17, 2005
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hmmmm. Why make "God forbid" such a big issue?

    The reading "God forbid" comes from a Hebrew colloquialism. This is a Hebraism that is almost lost in the modern versions. In the Old Testament, there are many oaths taken, sometimes with the name of God clearly stated and other times with the name of God only implied. In Joshua 24:16 "God forbid that we should forsake the LORD" is an example of such an oath. In I Chron. 11:19 "my God forbid it me" is rendered in the Greek LXX by "me genoito" even though the word God is in the Hebrew, it is not in the Greek but implied. If we would consult our lexicons, maybe we would not be at such a loss to explain this usage of me genoito. Liddell and Scott, Thayer, and Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich all say that "God forbid" is a legitimate translation in English of me genoito.

    Not only do all the previous English versions use this same expression, but so does the Douay of 1950 in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Cor. and Galatians, as do the Revised Version, the American Standard Version (in all the same new testament verses as the KJV), The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14. The Revised Standard Version in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, The New RSV has "heaven forbid" in Luke 20:16 (likewise no "heaven" nor "forbid" in the Greek), By the way the NRSV also has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22. The Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17, Wesley’s Bible Translation has it in Mat. 16:22; Luke 20:16, and Gal. 6:14; Today’s English Version has it in Mt.16:22, The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJV has "God forbid"; The Living Bible has God forbid in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, the Jerusalem Bible has it in Luke 20:16. Are we unaware that the NASB has "God forbid" in Matt 16:22 where our own "scholarly" standards would condemn this version and the New KJV has rendered the exact same me genoito as God forbid in Galatians 6:14 ! Have we applied I Timothy 1:7 to ourselves? "Desiring to be teachers..understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

    By the same standard being set up, we likewise condemn almost every bible version presently in print. Why criticize the KJV for translating me genoito as God forbid when the lexicons tell us this is a perfectly acceptable way of rendering it? Plus there are a whole host of Bible versions both before and after the KJV that do the very same thing.

    Seems to me to be a huge non-issue. Unless, of course, you have a hidden agenda. [​IMG]
     
    #83 TCassidy, May 17, 2005
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perhaps but then again yours is the longest post concerning this "huge non-issue" yet. [​IMG]

    HankD
     
    #84 HankD, May 17, 2005
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is that going to be your only response? A critique of the length of my post?
     
    #85 TCassidy, May 17, 2005
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes because I said virtually what you said, go back and read my post.

    Because I was giving like response to askjo for the NKJV of God not following the TR, neither then does the KJV.

    HankD
     
    #86 HankD, May 17, 2005
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Is it a non-issue when most fundamenalists (non-KJVO) make such a big issue about dynamic equivalency, which "God forbid" is an example of? Isn't it true that neither the words "God" or "forbid" are found in the Greek? Isn't also true that the duty of the translator is to translate as accurately as possible to the original, which would render the Greek expression more like "May it not be."
    Is it not also true, that even if that expression is not as strong an expression as "God forbid," that it is the duty of the Bible student, whom God has commanded, to "study to show himsself approved unto God..." to find out what exactly that expression means, instead of the translators inserting their interpretation of the phrase into the text for us?
    DHK
     
    #87 DHK, May 17, 2005
  8. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    #88 Askjo, May 17, 2005
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, it is an equally wrong-headed issue. That was my point.
    You can't have it both ways. Either "God forbid" is an example of dynamic equivalence just as the modern versions engage in, or it isn't. If it is alright for the modern versions it is alright for the KJV. No double standards allowed.
    No. It is the duty of the translator to render the donor language into the verbal equivalent in the receptor language. "May it not be" does not convey the force of the Hebraicism which the Greek carries over.
    All translation is interpretation. It is disingenuous to decry "God forbid" why accepting the dynamic equivalence of the later English versions. Once again, double standards are not allowed.
     
    #89 TCassidy, May 17, 2005
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    askjo, as I implied and even plainly stated before to you and Doc C, dynamic equivalence (DE) is not the problem I am addressing.

    My personal opinion is that it is impossible to translate a work as voluminous as the Holy Bible without some DE related to the receptor language.

    However it must be both dynamic and a worthy equivalent. I think the KJV translators did a fine job for their time and culture.

    However, in this case, I don't like their rendering of "me genoito" as "God forbid" and I don't think it is worthy. Had it not been rendered as a direct command (at least in form) to God but perhaps as "May God forbid it" then I would not find it as offensive.

    I realize that this is also a subjective call, but that is me, in my little microcosm of this universe.

    Having said that, the main point I am addressing is your issue which says that the NKJV does not follow the TR because of the words of God in the NKJV at Matthew 15:5 using that same criteria for "me genoito" is IMO the same situation in the KJV.

    So, find another verse in the NKJV which does "not follow the TR" and try to make it something other than a DE circumstance which is so heavily subjective to the translators, their culture and time period to prove that point (if possible).

    I might just agree with you (although I'm not going to give you an example).

    HankD
     
    #90 HankD, May 17, 2005
  11. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    HankD, Thanks. [​IMG]
     
    #91 Askjo, May 17, 2005
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    -------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by HankD:
    but askjo fails to mention (as Ed points out)
    that it is italics indicating by the NKJV translators
    that it is not in the original language text.
    -------------------------------------------------

    According to BibleGateway.com it does not show the italics on the NKJV.
    Yes, BibleGateway.com and most other electronic sources do
    not show SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION that GOD HAS FOR US.
    Nothing like a paper Bible. BTW, I have three King James Versions
    in PAPER by my computer. Two of them show the italics and
    the translator notes:
    KJV1611 Edition
    KJV1873 Edition

    Showing neither the italics nor the translator notes is the
    KJV1769 Edition.

    Why would people call the KJV1769 the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD
    if it only has 98% of it?
     
    #92 Ed Edwards, May 17, 2005
  13. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK [​IMG]

    HankD
     
    #93 HankD, May 18, 2005
  14. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Roman Catholic Church produced its own Bible before the King James Version. In 1582 the Rheims New Testament was published, and it was extensively used by the King James Version revisers. The Douay Bible, a translation of the Latin Vulgate, was published in 1609, but its publication was too late to influence the King James Version translators.
     
    #94 Keith M, May 20, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 5 of 5
Loading...