Will the Real KJV Please Stand Up!

Hank wrote,

Well, I'm not a KJVO but KJVp because the TR IMO is the better text.

I think the underlying question is whether the Greek word husteron is an abverb or adjective of comparison. There is a difference of opinion in translation here and it could go either way.

Personally, I believe the NIV says it best:

NIV Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

Well, Hank, I see that you shifted the focus from the English tense of the verb to the Greek adverbial adjective which has no tense. What you said about the Greek word husteron (afterward) is true , but what does that tell us about the English tense of the verb (an hungred) in this phrase in the KJV? It is a translation of the active aorist indicative Greek verb επείνασε.

As for NIV translation of this verse, I don’t believe that it is precise enough:

NIV Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

Compare the NASB 1995 Update translation:

NASBU Matthew 4:2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.

KJV Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Majority Text Matthew 4:2 καὶ νηστεύσας ημέρας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ νύκτας τεσσεράκοντα στερον επείνασε.

I don’t believe that there is any reasonable doubt that the NASBU translation of Matthew 4:2 is just as accurate as the KJV and that it is much easier to read. The NIV translation flows a little better but is not as accurate. Personally, I am much more concerned with accuracy than I am with flow.

[ February 09, 2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

You know Craig, I have two minds about this also.
My feeling is that accuracy and flow (understandability) are like the two wings of an airplane.

Which is more important?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]"Flow" and "understandability" are not two peas in a pod. In fact, they are more different than apples and oranges. “Flow” has to do with the physical sound and relationship of the words; “understanding” has to do with the comprehension of the words. Perhaps we should start a thread on Translation Theory.

 

So say you.

Poverbs 1:5
A wise [man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

Understanding comes through the recognizable "sounds" of words and the order in which they are sequenced.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Extremely complex poetry may flow much better than the NIV and yet be very difficult for any but very well educated people to understand.

I am very familiar with Eugene Nida and the so-called "Dynamic" Equivalence principle; the “flow” of the words has nothing to do with any of it, nor with how understandable phrases and sentences may be.

A side note: The NIV “butchers” in a very crude manner the thoughts and expressions of the New Testament writers, especially their uses of the very complex Greek verb system. Whether it is a satisfactory translation for 7th graders and others with underdeveloped reading skills is a hotly debated topic.

Topic note: Let’s not further derail THIS thread. The late 16th and early 17th century English grammar in Matthew 4:2 and the problems it poses for publishers, printers and 21st century readers is the topic of this thread. So far, no one has correctly interpreted the last phrase in that verse do to the foresaid problems. There are many unsatisfactory renderings in the KJV and these unsatisfactory renderings are proof that the KJO theory is false. The KJV is an excellent translation, but it is not perfect.