So, you would then say the NKJV is "perfect"?
Perfect Translation
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by God's_Servant, Jun 21, 2010.
Page 2 of 8
-
Hi jbh28
Like I have been saying all along, it all depends upon how “you” define perfect.
Although the NKJV, resembles the KJB, it has been influenced by Wescott & Hort’s [Bible attack snipped] text.
So I am going to stick with the KJB. -
One would imagine that, had the shoe been on the other foot, the pro-literal advocates would be yelling, "Look, here's Holy Spirit confirmation that verbal inspiration demands literal translation!" So there's no need to reinterpret the work of the Spirit here. The notion of word-perfect translation is a linguistic myth, an artificial construct by certain misguided Christian literary (though not linguistic) experts, and quite untenable both theologically and practically. Ironically, the more translations are literal, the more likely they are to be anomalous--unnatural, awkward, and ultimately inaccurate being unfaithful to the meaning intended. Anything but "perfect" translations.
Simply put, if we let the chips fall where they may (as we should) when we read the NT, it's impossible to miss the pattern by the Divine Author and the inspired human NT authors as they translate the Word of God from the OT. It's the overall meaning that's communicated, not the word forms in the source language.
Nor does the NT dismiss their non-literal translation as a mere "paraphrase" or "perversion" but affirms it as "It is written," "Thus saith the LORD," inspired Scripture, no less.
And, further, all this makes a monkey out of the misnamed "Dean Burgon Society's" recent resolution in exclusive favour of the "Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament"--something above that which is written, something the Holy Spirit evidently didn't resolve:
-
You keep throwing this charge out, but you have yet to give one shred of evidence to support it.
-
Back to the O/P with an example of what I meant by “progressive revelation”
KJV Luke 4
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
…
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
LXE Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;
2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;
KJV Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
This phrase recovering of sight to the blind in Luke 4:18 is not in the Isaiah 61 Traditional Text of the Masora (it appears in Isaiah 42) but is present in the LXX at that place. It is an added thought to the text at that place.
Was this actually in the text that Jesus read or was it added (or moved from Isaiah 42) by the inspiration of God via the human author Luke in fulfillment of (perhaps):
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared (exogeomai) him.
In any event the phrase is not found in the Traditional Hebrew Text of Isaiah 61 but in Isaiah 42.
Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
It is however present in the inspired text of the NT Greek and corresponds to the wording of the LXX of Isaiah 61 (which someone suggested might have been doctored to align with the NT).
Conclusion (maybe?) Until Christ (God come in the flesh) appeared we were in effect BLIND to the true nature of God (God is love) having only the OT revelation. The Spirit of God freely updating the text where He chooses.
Unless there is the unthinkable and the Masoretic text is corrupt.
Which I suppose would be a systemic scribal problem and therefore a human issue not involving the core doctrine of inspiration.
HankD -
-
The grammar, syntax and vocabluary of 17th century Jacobean-Elizabethan English of the AV is significantly different than 21st century Standard English.
When the MV's were first translated (From W&H type texts) much/most of this issue was cleared up at publication.
The NKJV followed the same pattern from the Traditional Texts.
The similarities in changes were because of that reason and not because of any "satanic influence" or to agree with Vaticanus or Alexandrinus (W&H favorites).
Here is an example:
KJV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
NIV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
NKJV
1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
Another:
KJV Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
NIV Matthew 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
NKJV
Matthew 26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you".
Here is a place where the W&H choice was taken by most MV's with a real difference over the Traditional Text:
NIV 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
You will see that the NKJV retained the Traditional Text reading:
NKJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
HankD -
-
-
-
HankD -
They can't show where because there isn't a place where the NKJV is less faithful to the TR body that the KJV is. -
http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/nkjv_2.htm
And here are two examples of a textual change that you mentioned.
-
And the rest of those 'changes' are translational choices, not textual choices. -
Here is another article showing even more differences between the KJB and the NKJV:
-
Continued from previous post:
-
5 Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. (KJV)
5. Hear the word of the LORD, You who tremble at His word: "Your brethren who hated you, Who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, That we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed." (NKJV) -
All of your OT differences are meaningless here, we are talking about differences in the Greek text, not Hebrew. -
It is obvious that you don't want to accept that the NKJV is heavily influenced by the Critical text. So it really doesn't matter what I show you. -
Your statement was the the NKJV is a hybrid of the two text bodies. All I asked was for you to prove it with one instance where the NKJV chose the critical texts over the traditional.
You responded with a bunch of OT quotes, one which I pointed out above was a total lie, and translational differences. I take it that you know Greek well enough to be able to prove your assertions?
You could settle the matter by showing us where the NKJV chooses the critical text over the traditional where the KJV did not do the same.
Page 2 of 8