NKJV/KJV Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
One of the issues that i have come back to from time to time is why is the KJV better than the NKJV. Rev. Winzer has helped me in this area a few times, and i would now like to point out what i consider to be some interesting differences in translation.

The NKJV weakens God's sovereignty in this verse.

And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. (Rev 16:16, NKJV)

And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. (Rev 16:16, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV forgets about Joshua and Caleb in this verse.

For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? (Heb 3:16, NKJV)

For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. (Heb 3:16, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV makes us think that it's a problem with our personal relationship with Christ when we seek justification by the law, while the KJV tells us that it's Christ having no effect unto them.

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4, NKJV)

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV rendering would lead us to believe that those following Jesus were starving instead of fasting...the difference being in religious motivation.

Now Jesus called His disciples to Himself and said, "I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way." (Mat 15:32, NKJV)

Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. (Mat 15:32, KJV)
 

InevitablyReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
This is why as soon as I become less busy (several research papers are getting most of my attention) I am going to teach myself (and seek help from my pastor) Biblical Greek.

It is the only way to defeat KJV-onlyism...;)
 

Quickened

Puritan Board Senior
I never really looked into differences between the translations. Interesting post. Are there any good threads discussing this topic in more detail?
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
This is why as soon as I become less busy (several research papers are getting most of my attention) I am going to teach myself (and seek help from my pastor) Biblical Greek.

It is the only way to defeat KJV-onlyism...;)

I doubt that you will find (m)any KJV-onlyists on the puritanboard. There's a big difference between believing that the KJV is the best English Bible compared to being the only Bible that can be used.

I think it's interesting that you want to study Greek to defeat KJVOism. I would think it a healthier attitude to study something to find the truth. Are you going into your studies already knowing what you want your conclusion to look like?
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, we (I) prefer to call ourselves Real KJV Users.

You don't need Biblical Greek to take down the Riplinger/Ruckman types.

Larry, I like your OP, especially the hungry/fasting comparison. That's what is with the NKJV. The NIV changes are blatant, but with the NKJV, a little hear and a little there. When I've compaired them, it's like somebody tried to update the language using the KJV as the original, instead of using the Greek.

(Yes, us real KJV uses know that the KJV isn't an autographa. But it was let down from heaven on a golden cord by God. :p Btw, that's a joke incase there are any newcomers into the fray. After all, if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!)
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
This is why as soon as I become less busy (several research papers are getting most of my attention) I am going to teach myself (and seek help from my pastor) Biblical Greek.

It is the only way to defeat KJV-onlyism...;)

Would that all the Lord's people read Hebrew and Greek, but they don't, and even those who do read them are still reliant on uninspired grmmars, lexicons, etc. If the Lord's people are bound to a translation then they should be referred to the one that most accurately renders the Word of God as originally given.
 

InevitablyReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
This is why as soon as I become less busy (several research papers are getting most of my attention) I am going to teach myself (and seek help from my pastor) Biblical Greek.

It is the only way to defeat KJV-onlyism...;)

I doubt that you will find (m)any KJV-onlyists on the puritanboard. There's a big difference between believing that the KJV is the best English Bible compared to being the only Bible that can be used.

I think it's interesting that you want to study Greek to defeat KJVOism. I would think it a healthier attitude to study something to find the truth. Are you going into your studies already knowing what you want your conclusion to look like?

Wow brother,

Did you catch the wink at the end?

It seems that humor doesn't work so well on the internet.

It seems to me that all of these quarrels over English translations would be advanced if our knowlege of Greek was improved. Then again, maybe not.

Don't mind me, didn't mean to upset you.

And I certainly pray that I don't go "into my studies already knowing what you want my conclusion to look like."
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
Wow brother,

Did you catch the wink at the end?

It seems that humor doesn't work so well on the internet.

It seems to me that all of these quarrels over English translations would be advanced if our knowlege of Greek was improved. Then again, maybe not.

Don't mind me, didn't mean to upset you.

And I certainly pray that I don't go "into my studies already knowing what you want my conclusion to look like."

I wasn't sure how much of a joke it was. There seemed to be some grain of truth in the statement.

Do you think that an increased knowledge in Greek will lead you away from the KJV?
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Daniel, Sorry. You have no idea how many times that same thing comes up with the newer people on the board. They see us real KJV users, and lump us into the KJV-Only crowd.
 

InevitablyReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
Wow brother,

Did you catch the wink at the end?

It seems that humor doesn't work so well on the internet.

It seems to me that all of these quarrels over English translations would be advanced if our knowlege of Greek was improved. Then again, maybe not.

Don't mind me, didn't mean to upset you.

And I certainly pray that I don't go "into my studies already knowing what you want my conclusion to look like."

I wasn't sure how much of a joke it was. There seemed to be some grain of truth in the statement.

Do you think that an increased knowledge in Greek will lead you away from the KJV?

I hope that an increased knowledge in Greek leads to a better understanding of God's Word. If an increased knowledge in Greek leads me to the KJV, well, praise God.:sing:
 

InevitablyReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
Daniel, Sorry. You have no idea how many times that same thing comes up with the newer people on the board. They see us real KJV users, and lump us into the KJV-Only crowd.

Hey, no problem on this end. My wife tells me I am too sarcastic sometimes and she's right (I've only been married for about two years so I still haven't figured out that my wife has me figured out).

For now, have a good night.

:popcorn:
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
Wow brother,

Did you catch the wink at the end?

It seems that humor doesn't work so well on the internet.

It seems to me that all of these quarrels over English translations would be advanced if our knowlege of Greek was improved. Then again, maybe not.

Don't mind me, didn't mean to upset you.

And I certainly pray that I don't go "into my studies already knowing what you want my conclusion to look like."

I wasn't sure how much of a joke it was. There seemed to be some grain of truth in the statement.

Do you think that an increased knowledge in Greek will lead you away from the KJV?

I hope that an increased knowledge in Greek leads to a better understanding of God's Word. If an increased knowledge in Greek leads me to the KJV, well, praise God.:sing:

It will definitely lead you to a better understanding...as will Hebrew.

To be honest i love 2 English versions: KJV and ESV.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
Actually, I'm kicking myself for not picking up on it. I should of known better, because nobody takes KJV-Onlyism seriously. Thanks and good night to you too. And God bless you and your family too!
 

Galatians220

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Check out this verse in any/all available translations:

Genesis 15:1 (KJV) - "After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward."

Virtually all other modernized translations render the end of that verse, "thy reward shall be great" or something like that. I humby submit that the KJV rendering (and the 1599 Geneva, another TR-based translation) alludes to the coming covenant, to the Messiah, to God's Fatherhood of us, to our inclusion in the heavenly kingdom, etc., etc. It is a beautiful thought and a beautiful verse. Simply to say, "your reward will be very great" is to have God playing a guessing game, in effect, with Abram. What will He give him? Lands? Children? Riches? All materialism! No: something infinitely better in His only begotten Son (BTW, check out John 1:12-14 in the KJV and other versions...), dying the death we deserved, God in the flesh, with God the Spirit to indwell His children.

Dr. Hills, Dean Burgon, Dr. Theodore Letis, etc. all made their points quite eloquently: the KJV and other TR-faithful versions are for Reformed people, not just fundy Baptists!

Margaret
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
...It is a beautiful thought and a beautiful verse. Simply to say, "your reward will be very great" is to have God playing a guessing game, in effect, with Abram. What will He give him? Lands? Children? Riches? All materialism! No: something infinitely better in His only begotten Son (BTW, check out John 1:12-14 in the KJV and other versions...), dying the death we deserved, God in the flesh, with God the Spirit to indwell His children.

Dr. Hills, Dean Burgon, Dr. Theodore Letis, etc. all made their points quite eloquently: the KJV and other TR-faithful versions are for Reformed people, not just fundy Baptists!

Margaret
Versions like the Geneva and KJV (very close sisters) each give not only a painstakingly accurate translation, but the bonus of awe and fear of the Lord. When I read from them, not only am I picking up the meaning of the passage, but I am instantly put into a mind of worship of the Lord God Almighty.

In this day of ten-second commercials, impatient drivers, and fast food, I like to slow down and savor the Word. I like to read something that is not addressed to me first, but invokes foremost something greater than myself.

It's not about me; it's about God.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Check out this verse in any/all available translations:

Genesis 15:1 (KJV) - "After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward."

Virtually all other modernized translations render the end of that verse, "thy reward shall be great" or something like that. I humby submit that the KJV rendering (and the 1599 Geneva, another TR-based translation) alludes to the coming covenant, to the Messiah, to God's Fatherhood of us, to our inclusion in the heavenly kingdom, etc., etc. It is a beautiful thought and a beautiful verse. Simply to say, "your reward will be very great" is to have God playing a guessing game, in effect, with Abram. What will He give him? Lands? Children? Riches? All materialism! No: something infinitely better in His only begotten Son (BTW, check out John 1:12-14 in the KJV and other versions...), dying the death we deserved, God in the flesh, with God the Spirit to indwell His children.

Dr. Hills, Dean Burgon, Dr. Theodore Letis, etc. all made their points quite eloquently: the KJV and other TR-faithful versions are for Reformed people, not just fundy Baptists!

Margaret

That's an interesting point, Margaret, but I noticed that NIV (my least favorite translation) renders Gen 15:1 it similar to the KJV "I am your shielf, your very great reward" while my favorite translation ESV renders it "your reward shall be great" I looked it up in several translations, and even checked out two french Bibles that are TR based, and most of them including the French Bibles rendered it "Your reward shall be great." (et ta récompense sera très grande.) In fact, there were more translations that rendered it "your reward shall be great". That makes me want to immediately want to go the Hebrew to see what it does say.


My point is that translations, even those that are TR-based, don't always agree. It would seem to me that the since God has blessed us with so many good translations in English, we should take advantage of that in our study.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Not just the NKJV

Hebrews 3:16

NIV: Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?

ESV: For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?

RSV: Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses?

NASB: For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?

HCSB: For who heard and rebelled? Wasn't it really all who came out of Egypt under Moses?

Revelation 16:16

NIV: Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

ESV: And they assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

RSV: And they assembled them at the place which is called in Hebrew Armaged'don.

NASB: And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.

HCSB: So they assembled them at the place called in Hebrew Armagedon.

Galatians 5:4

NIV: You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

ESV: You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

RSV: You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

NASB: You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

HCSB: You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace!

Matthew 15:32

NIV: Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way."

ESV: Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, I have compassion on the crowd because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.

RSV: Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way."

NASB: And Jesus called His disciples to Him, and said, "I feel compassion for the people, because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might faint on the way."

HCSB: Now Jesus summoned His disciples and said, "I have compassion on the crowd, because they've already stayed with Me three days and have nothing to eat. I don't want to send them away hungry; otherwise they might collapse on the way."


I refuse to use any modern English translations of the Bible for memorization, reading, or studying, because of these and other errors, some of which are heretical. (e.g. Micah 5:2 NIV, ESV, RSV, et. al) The 400th anniversary of the AV is 2011. In all that time English speakers have yet to produce any translation comparable to the AV. Hope springs eternal.
 

Stomata leontôn

Puritan Board Sophomore
In the Westcott-Hort stream of translations, though, there are some themes that one can readily pick out. One is a denigration of the deity and perfection of Jesus Christ,...
Considering the base manuscripts were written in Alexandria at the height of the Arian heresy there, this theme is suggestive. Also, the fact that the favorite manuscript, Sinaiticus, was found pristine, apparently unused for 1400 years is suspicious, too: it was a version of Scripture, physically attractive, thus perhaps too good to throw out, but the doctrinal weakenings would make it unfit for use in the church. So when we use these manuscripts, are we using the Arian New Testament?
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
I've always found modern translations (including the NKJV) to be strong on the divine nature of Christ where the KJV is not so much. E.g. Romans 9.5, Titus 2.13, 2 Peter 1.1. (Of course my Geneva gets these right too in many cases! :-D)

And about Alexandria being the "heresy bastion" - if Arians corrupted the manuscripts against Christ's deity, they did a very sloppy job, as no major conservative modern translation omits John 1.1, 8.58, 20.28, Philippians 2.5-6, or Colossians 2.9.

Plus, saying how many heretics were in Alexandria is a straw man. Didn't St. Cyril, St. Alexander, and St. Athanasius all come from Alexandria? Weren't they staunchly orthodox and trinitarian?
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Doubtful at best

I've always found modern translations (including the NKJV) to be strong on the divine nature of Christ where the KJV is not so much. E.g. (1) Romans 9.5, (2) Titus 2.13, 2 Peter 1.1. (Of course my Geneva gets these right too in many cases! :-D)

(3) And about Alexandria being the "heresy bastion" - if Arians corrupted the manuscripts against Christ's deity, they did a very sloppy job, as no major conservative modern translation omits John 1.1, 8.58, 20.28, Philippians 2.5-6, or Colossians 2.9.

(4) Plus, saying how many heretics were in Alexandria is a straw man. Didn't St. Cyril, St. Alexander, and St. Athanasius all come from Alexandria? Weren't they staunchly orthodox and trinitarian?

1) As neither Gill's nor Henry's Commentary nor the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 36 consider the AV rendering to be problematic it is disingenuous to claim that the AV is, concerning the divine nature of Christ, weaker than modern versions at this point.

2) Referring to the Granville Sharp "Rule" does not help. Calvin Winstanley's objections to it have yet to be answered satisfactorily. It should also be pointed out that the AV provides an accurate translation of the Greek while the modern versions provide an interpretation. (See WLC Q.38, Q.97)

3) You have failed to acknowledge that Arius' heresy was based, in part, upon the faulty rendering of Proverbs 8:22 as found in the Septuagint. A rendering which is repeated in many modern versions. (NIV, ESV, HCSB, NRSV, RSV) You also neglected the mention of John 1:18 in some of the modern versions shows the corruption of the heretics Porphyry and Valentinus. You also failed to mention the attributing of a lie to Jesus in John 7:8-10. (NASB, ESV, RSV) I also noticed you failed to mention the replacing of "God" for "He" or "who" in 1 Timothy 3:16. As the word "God" is only missing from 4 of the manuscripts which contain the verse, including Aleph, modern versions are suspect for this. You also failed to mention the support of modern versions for the kenosis heresy in Phil 2:7. (NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB, RSV) And of course all modern versions, save the NKJV, deny the Doctrine of Original Sin in Psalm 119:9. We don't keep our way pure as it is corrupt to begin with. We cleanse our way by taking heed to the word of God. (Arians actually did their work quite well. See John Burgon's Causes of Corruption and the Traditional Text.)

4) I agree with you here.

As pointed out in my previous post the NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, & NLT all deny the eternality of Christ in Micah 5:2; and thereby deny his deity. (They support the Jewish teaching that this verse does not prophesy concerning Christ.) Taking this list of modern versions with the list that use the corrupt Septuagint rendering of Proverbs 8:22 and those that teach Christ is a liar in John 7:8-10, and those that deny the Doctrine of Original Sin, most if not all modern versions, explicitly deny the deity of Christ. Neither the Geneva nor the Authorized Version suffer from these problems.

It does not matter which verses these modern versions leave intact, but which verses they change or remove. In making these various changes these modern versions are logically contradictory. It doesn't matter if the whole of a modern version save one verse teaches the Doctrine of Original Sin. That one contradictory verse undoes all the others. One contradiction destroys a system of thought.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
I would like to remind everybody that this is a thread about the NKJV and the KJV. It's not a thread about the different manuscript "families" but about how the NKJV, while claiming to adhere to the same underlying text as the KJV, still translates passages in different way to the KJV.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Two PDF files which list problems with the NKJV:

The New King James Version: What today's Christian needs to know about the NKJV (A110) pdf

The New King James Version and the Song of Solomon pdf

Hebrews 2:16

NKJV - For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

AV - For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Big difference between giving aid and taking on a nature.

Interesting paragraph from the first article:

The NKJV has a different philosophical and theological ba sis from the AV. One critic of English translations states, ‘Despite their lip service to the 1611 revisers, the NKJV preparers hold different presuppositions which come to light in their work’.19 The NKJV is the product primarily of a late twentieth-century American Fundamentalist-Baptist-Evangelical (in its broadest terms) perspective. This is not a criticism of the United States or the perspective of the translators; instead, it points out that the theological biases of the NKJV will be different from those of the AV. ‘Some of the passages [in the AV] formerly accused of having been unduly influenced by Calvinism have been modified.’20 These modifications display the differences between the theological stances of the NKJV translators and those of the AV translators.

And this paragraph:

An example of the theological bias of the NKJV translators is found in their use of capitalisation in 2 Thessalonians 2.7. Here the NKJV has ‘He who now restrains’. This capitalisation of ‘he’ indicates that it is the Holy Spirit who restrains and who will be ‘taken out of the way’. This ‘lends encouragement to the dis pensational interpretation of this passage and will for them confirm the dispensationalist’s supposition that the Holy Spirit is being men tioned.‘22

(Footnote references refer to the following book: Jack P Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 339, 343, & 347.)
 
Last edited:

Archlute

Puritan Board Senior
One of the issues that i have come back to from time to time is why is the KJV better than the NKJV. Rev. Winzer has helped me in this area a few times, and i would now like to point out what i consider to be some interesting differences in translation.

The NKJV weakens God's sovereignty in this verse.

And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. (Rev 16:16, NKJV)

And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. (Rev 16:16, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV forgets about Joshua and Caleb in this verse.

For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? (Heb 3:16, NKJV)

For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. (Heb 3:16, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV makes us think that it's a problem with our personal relationship with Christ when we seek justification by the law, while the KJV tells us that it's Christ having no effect unto them.

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4, NKJV)

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4, KJV)

_______________________________________________________________

The NKJV rendering would lead us to believe that those following Jesus were starving instead of fasting...the difference being in religious motivation.

Now Jesus called His disciples to Himself and said, "I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way." (Mat 15:32, NKJV)

Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. (Mat 15:32, KJV)


Interesting stuff.

As far as the difference in Rev. 16:16, I find it odd that NKJV went with the third person plural, as even the CT version found in the NA27 has the third person singular. It looks like the NKJV went with just the Vulgate and the Alexandrian on that point, but isn't it supposed to be a Majority Text translation?

As far as Heb. 3:16. The Greek text is the same in either case, it is just an issue of interpreting the slant of the statement, whether interrogative or indicative, and since punctuation is not included in the Greek originals, it is a matter of interpretive context. Not really a big deal.

The KJV of Galatians 5:4 just gets it wrong. There is no way to take the passive second person plural verb with the genitive construct using "apo" in the way that is found in the KJV. Unless there is some other mss evidence that the KJV is using that does not show up in my apparatus, I'd have to say that they tanked the translation. That's okay, because they do it with their interpretation of the opening dative phrase found in Galatians 5:1 as well.

The term under consideration in Matt. 15:32 is derived from a root most often used to describe activities of fasting, but to assume that this cognate must therefore refer to the act of fasting also is to commit the etymological fallacy of linguistics. In fact, when a study is done on how this form is used in other Greek lit (not to mention how it is rendered in the parallel Gospel passages of Matt./Mark by BDAG), it is seen that almost uniformly the sense is given as "hunger, famine, or being restricted from eating by necessity rather than personal volition". So, I would go with the NKJV on this translation again.

But at least the KJV seems to score a point with Rev. 16:16!
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
As far as the difference in Rev. 16:16, I find it odd that NKJV went with the third person plural, as even the CT version found in the NA27 has the third person singular. It looks like the NKJV went with just the Vulgate and the Alexandrian on that point, but isn't it supposed to be a Majority Text translation?
As Farstad was the General Editor, it was originally going to use the Farstad/Hodges Majority Text. But they decided to use the Received Text for the translation...most likely for marketing strategy.

As far as Heb. 3:16. The Greek text is the same in either case, it is just an issue of interpreting the slant of the statement, whether interrogative or indicative, and since punctuation is not included in the Greek originals, it is a matter of interpretive context. Not really a big deal.
I think how the translators interpret the text is an important issue to look into. We are all the product of our environment to some extent. As such, American translators today interpret things from a different context than did the translators from the 17th century.
Some of the things that impact today's translators would be: women's liberation movements, focus on individuality, focus on feelings and emotionalism, reliance on the non-existent original manuscripts as our authority, etc. etc.

I would suggest that the interpretation that the NKJV uses for Heb 3:16 shows that they don't hold the Scripture in as high esteem as the 17th century translators did. They translate it as a religious text instead of a sacred text, giving it greater flexibility in its treatment. So they can say in effect, "so what if 'all' didn't rebel, we can still translate it that way since we aren't dealing with the originals, and it's only the originals that have the final authority."
I see the NKJV translators having this issue with the text also because they chose the TR instead of the MT, even though they felt the MT was a better text.

The KJV of Galatians 5:4 just gets it wrong. There is no way to take the passive second person plural verb with the genitive construct using "apo" in the way that is found in the KJV. Unless there is some other mss evidence that the KJV is using that does not show up in my apparatus, I'd have to say that they tanked the translation.
That still doesn't make the NKJV rendering correct. "Estranged" conveys the idea of enmity coming in where love used to dwell, and that seems a little too interpretive from our modern emotionalism standpoint.


The term under consideration in Matt. 15:32 is derived from a root most often used to describe activities of fasting, but to assume that this cognate must therefore refer to the act of fasting also is to commit the etymological fallacy of linguistics.
I wouldn't say that it had to be translated as fasting either, but in the context i would think fasting is perfectly suited. If they weren't fasting and were simply hungry why didn't the young boy already eat his food?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The KJV of Galatians 5:4 just gets it wrong. There is no way to take the passive second person plural verb with the genitive construct using "apo" in the way that is found in the KJV. Unless there is some other mss evidence that the KJV is using that does not show up in my apparatus, I'd have to say that they tanked the translation. That's okay, because they do it with their interpretation of the opening dative phrase found in Galatians 5:1 as well.

The idea of severing or alienation is an extension of "katargew," which is only required when the speaker is referring to a subjective relation to an object. The apostle's concern is clearly with the objective status of his readers in Gal. 5:1-5, which requires the word to be understood in its natural signification as making void or inactive. William Hendriksen enters into an apology for making exegesis overrule theology, but the fact is that he has made the exegesis to speak to the wrong theological subject. Perseverance of the saints only becomes an issue by reading the subjective relation into the apostle's words, as is done by the modern translators both here and in chap. 1:6. When the objective status of the readers is understood to be the focus of the apostle's rebuke then it is only the privileges they are claiming from Christ which are rendered null and void, not a living union with Him.

"Apo" could be taken as indicating the direct agent of the passive action, and hence legitimately made the subject of the sentence.

The Byzantine tradition includes the definite article in the prepositional phrase, but this is omitted in the critical apparatus.
 

AThornquist

Puritan Board Doctor
Daniel, Sorry. You have no idea how many times that same thing comes up with the newer people on the board. They see us real KJV users, and lump us into the KJV-Only crowd.

I was one of them :) After reading through about 6 hours worth of debates on here and trying to digest them, I understand the KJV-preferred folk much more. Ha, I thought ignominiously unscholarly people like Gail Riplinger held the arguments for using the KJV. Nope...apparently honest people have arguments for it as well! Still, I prefer the ESV, but I view KJV-only (particularly uneducated fanatics like Riplinger) and KJV-preferred groups (such as some of you) in very different ways now.
The conversation in this thread has been edifying for me as well. One thing that bothers me sometimes though is that it can appear that the KJV is the standard of truth; thus, when other translations--the NKJV in this case--are compared to the KJV in regards to wording, the KJV is viewed as right and the others, if different, as wrong. I'm sure that isn't really the case most of the time though.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
The conversation in this thread has been edifying for me as well. One thing that bothers me sometimes though is that it can appear that the KJV is the standard of truth; thus, when other translations--the NKJV in this case--are compared to the KJV in regards to wording, the KJV is viewed as right and the others, if different, as wrong. I'm sure that isn't really the case most of the time though.

Yes indead, some of the people here on the PB have taught me well, it was educational to read some of the debates.

I don't think others (except the NIV and those pesky paraphrases) are wrong, but I don't think they are as suited for research. I don't speak Greek and Hebrew, but when I've gone against liberal theologians, the KJV hasn't let me down when the conversation degrades to the usual "Well Tim, what does that say in the original languages". I make them look it up, and the KJV has compaired very well. (Meaning that I get to say, "See, I was right") It's precision in language is unbeatable.

I think each version has it's usage (ie, pluses and minuses) One for family's to use, another for the newcomers whose english isn't as good, and another for research. I do subscribe to the idea that the best translation is one that a person will read. It does annoy me when a person who isn't familiar with the Biblical english in the KJV mis-uses it.

I am glad that you view us in a different light now. Just call us - Real KJV Users!!
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
I must disagree

The conversation in this thread has been edifying for me as well. One thing that bothers me sometimes though is that it can appear that the KJV is the standard of truth; thus, when other translations--the NKJV in this case--are compared to the KJV in regards to wording, the KJV is viewed as right and the others, if different, as wrong. I'm sure that isn't really the case most of the time though.

Yes indead, some of the people here on the PB have taught me well, it was educational to read some of the debates.

I don't think others (except the NIV and those pesky paraphrases) are wrong, but I don't think they are as suited for research. I don't speak Greek and Hebrew, but when I've gone against liberal theologians, the KJV hasn't let me down when the conversation degrades to the usual "Well Tim, what does that say in the original languages". I make them look it up, and the KJV has compaired very well. (Meaning that I get to say, "See, I was right") It's precision in language is unbeatable.

I think each version has it's usage (ie, pluses and minuses) One for family's to use, another for the newcomers whose english isn't as good, and another for research. I do subscribe to the idea that the best translation is one that a person will read. It does annoy me when a person who isn't familiar with the Biblical english in the KJV mis-uses it.

I am glad that you view us in a different light now. Just call us - Real KJV Users!!

We need to change KJV to AV. Why? RKJVU is not as catchy as RAVUs.
 

larryjf

Puritan Board Senior
One thing that bothers me sometimes though is that it can appear that the KJV is the standard of truth; thus, when other translations--the NKJV in this case--are compared to the KJV in regards to wording, the KJV is viewed as right and the others, if different, as wrong. I'm sure that isn't really the case most of the time though.

When comparing the NKJV and KJV i think that's an appropriate thing to do simply because they are both supposed to use the same underlying text. When speaking of other versions it's more profitable to discuss the manuscript issues themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top