Rock of Ages Study Bible

[rsr]

There are many but for the sake of space and time I will give you one.
Matthew 18:26 (KJV)
The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Matthew 18:26 (NKJV)
The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.'

The words "worshipped him" are missing in the NKJV. It is present in the TR (and W/H) as προσεκυνει αυτω, which means "to worship." The NKJV follows the NIV, NASB, and RSV who do the same thing. If you need more evidence let me know.

But that is not a textual variant; it is a matter of translational choices.

 

[Bayouparson]

I could say the same thing about you. But, for the most part you have not shared facts as much as you have shared opinion.

Maybe you should go back and check the thread of this discussion. You have contributed five (5) posts and non of them contain any facts. The only people that has contributed any facts on the other side of this issue is LOGOS1560 and Ed Sutton. If you go back and check I addressed LOGOS1560's facts. Your contributions have been criticisms and accusations. I do not plan to reply to anymore of your diatribes. Thus you may keep your opinions to yourself as far as I am concerned.

 

[Bayouparson]

But that is not a textual variant; it is a matter of translational choices.

Are you saying that "fell down before him" is the same as "worshipped him?" I'm not convinced there is an equivalence of the two phrases. Falling down before a person does not necessarily constitute worship. Maybe the NKJV is more akin to the NIV, NASB and RSV than the KJV and than admitted by some.

 

[sag38]

Bayou I'm not going to debate your opinion. And, I'm not asking you to debate mine. Plus, I have not posted any diatribes. I've just posted some very brief obsevations. Now about your diatribes. That's a different story.

 

[rsr]

Are you saying that "fell down before him" is the same as "worshipped him?" I'm not convinced there is an equivalence of the two phrases. Falling down before a person does not necessarily constitute worship.

I'm not saying they are equivalent, but more than one translator (before and after the KJV) has rendered it so, or at least has pointed out that "worship" in this context does not necessarily imply what we think of as holy reverence.

The seruaunt fell downe, & besought hym, saying: Lorde, haue pacience with me, and I wyll pay thee all. — Bishops Bible

This was a polite reverence which was very common in the East. — Geneva Bible notes

... crouched as a dog before him, with the greatest deference, submission, and anxiety. — Adam Clarke's commentary

Then having fallen down, the slave bowed the knee to him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay all to you. — Green's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

Again, the difference is not in the text followed, but in different translations of the same words.

 

[Harold Garvey]

I have no problem whatsoever with your desire to stick with the KJV, or anyone else's. I have a problem when you, or anyone else, starts going on about any other translation not being the word of God. There was no special revelation or inspiration given with the translation of any English translation (or any other language for that matter), and there is therefore no justification for the slander. I hope you understand that, at least for me, this is what I oppose, not someone's choice to use the KJV.

I cannot agree. The KJV has been proven time and time again to have its words to relate very accurately the things of God and without conjecture.

God can and does use all kinds of translations, both in the English language and others. We should all be thankful that He does. If only one would work then the vast majority of the world would be left out.

The why do so many refer back to the original autographs as the "ONLY" inspired word. This stance leaves us all in want of the word of God and definitely supposes we only have man's words about what the word of God "should" be.

No one is fighting the KJV, only the notion that it is something other than one of several translations. Yes, it has been used for a long time and will continue to be used... but that doesn't make it more spiritual or inspired. Using it is personal choice, but trying to put it on some kind of spiritual pedestal is adhering to a man-made doctrine. The KJV is a translation, not a new work of inspiration.

As far as i know i have never seen anyone say or even hint that the KJV is a "new work of inspiration". We maintain and stand on the fact the KJV is the inspired word of God translated into Englsih and NOWHERE has it lost its inspiration.

You and others claim no translation is inspired by conjecture and leave man without an inspired Bible. That is truly a sad position to have and very pessimistic to say the least. Actually believing what you said is even more subjective than waht you cry out against as thosewho claim the KJV to be the only Bible.

The term "Authorized" with the KJV had to do with the King's endorsement of certain publisher to print it. The KJV developed its "acceptance" because the crown forced it upon the people as the Anglican bible. It gained respect because it is still a translation of God's word.

If that were true then everyone who stands on the KJV would be Anglican and we are not.

I'm sorry and don't want to be condescending, but your suspicion is not exactly true and doesn't fit us all.

I have yet to see where King james is forcing me to accept the KJV. I picked it as the choice over other translations as I have found each one I have had the chance to read as wanting.

 

[Johnv]

The KJV has been proven time and time again to have its words to relate very accurately the things of God and without conjecture.

That's not your contention. Your contention is that it is impossible to improve upon the KJV translation, based on your belief that it is impossible to improve upon the KJV translation. That is the definition of circular reasoning. And if anyone demonstrates where the language of the KJV can be approved upon, you cite that as an attack upon the KJV.

 

[Harold Garvey]

And, I'll add one more thing.

You stated this.Sorry, this is still an opinion, only, and not objective 'fact.'

Ed

Nope, ed, the KJV stands alone as far as translations go or there wouldn't be a "5 point" system set up to slander anyone who gets awarded the title of being KJVO.

The two are interconnected and every thread in here eventually winds up about the KJV, therefore in those two instances alone, the KJV stands, alone.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

But that is not a textual variant; it is a matter of translational choices.

It is a variant of translation making textual choices based upon clarity and a concise rendering of the language to prevent error.

 

[Harold Garvey]

That's not your contention. Your contention is that it is impossible to improve upon the KJV translation, based on your belief that it is impossible to improve upon the KJV translation. That is the definition of circular reasoning. And if anyone demonstrates where the language of the KJV can be approved upon, you cite that as an attack upon the KJV.

Mt staements are proven to be true while all you've done is add your conjecture, again.

I have yet to see where any improvement has been made that doesn't lie under the opinion of others which eventually turns against the KJV rendering. All the while making the reader subject to that opinion, and leaving out a definite part of the definition of a word, which DOES NOT provide a concise reading as found in the KJV.

Most objections to the rendering found in the KJV is due to a definition being incomplete and relying on words which have changed in meaning as if they are some sort of proof for validating new versions.:sleeping_2:

 

[Johnv]

The Textus Receptus conveys the meaning better than the KJV. Why have you not abandoned the KJv in favor of the TR?

 

[Bayouparson]

I cannot agree. The KJV has been proven time and time again to have its words to relate very accurately the things of God and without conjecture.

The why do so many refer back to the original autographs as the "ONLY" inspired word. This stance leaves us all in want of the word of God and definitely supposes we only have man's words about what the word of God "should" be. As far as i know i have never seen anyone say or even hint that the KJV is a "new work of inspiration". We maintain and stand on the fact the KJV is the inspired word of God translated into English and NOWHERE has it lost its inspiration.

You and others claim no translation is inspired by conjecture and leave man without an inspired Bible. That is truly a sad position to have and very pessimistic to say the least. Actually believing what you said is even more subjective than waht you cry out against as those who claim the KJV to be the only Bible.

If that were true then everyone who stands on the KJV would be Anglican and we are not.

I'm sorry and don't want to be condescending, but your suspicion is not exactly true and doesn't fit us all.

I have yet to see where King james is forcing me to accept the KJV. I picked it as the choice over other translations as I have found each one I have had the chance to read as wanting.

Harold, I hope you have more luck getting these guys to answer the issue about the believing the Bible is inspired in the "original autographs" and how that indicates there is no inspired Bible in captivity because the original autographs do not exist anywhere on this earth.

 

[Bayouparson]

I'm not saying they are equivalent, but more than one translator (before and after the KJV) has rendered it so, or at least has pointed out that "worship" in this context does not necessarily imply what we think of as holy reverence.

The seruaunt fell downe, & besought hym, saying: Lorde, haue pacience with me, and I wyll pay thee all. — Bishops Bible

This was a polite reverence which was very common in the East. — Geneva Bible notes

... crouched as a dog before him, with the greatest deference, submission, and anxiety. — Adam Clarke's commentary

Then having fallen down, the slave bowed the knee to him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay all to you. — Green's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

Again, the difference is not in the text followed, but in different translations of the same words.

The matter of worship is in the verse and any attempt to take it away would diminish from the force of the verse. The context is talking about a King and a kingdom (Matt. 18:23). The application is that it is about God. To bow down is still not the same as worship. I'm still not sure what the Geneva Bible, Adam Clark, and Green have to do with the meaning of the verse. You can translate it any way you want to and the word translated is still "worship" in the Greek. All of these attempts to diminish the meaning given by the KJV and that the NKJV is better baffles me.

 

[Johnv]

Harold, I hope you have more luck getting these guys to answer the issue about the believing the Bible is inspired in the "original autographs" and how that indicates there is no inspired Bible in captivity because the original autographs do not exist anywhere on this earth.

I've got a copy in front of me right now. It's the exact same same text verbatim used by the KJV translators.

 

[Bayouparson]

I've got a copy in front of me right now. It's the exact same same text verbatim used by the KJV translators.

Do you preach in Greek then? Or if you don't preach, does your pastor preach in Greek? Maybe we should get everyone to learn Greek since you have the "original autographs." Then we could all come to your place and read from it so we could read from the "original autographs." Of course you know I am just kidding.

 

[rsr]

To bow down is still not the same as worship.

At least we agree that the NKJV did not use a textual variant. (Since there is none.)

As far as whether "worship" is the proper translation, are you not attributing to the English word "worship" a meaning — that it applies specifically to God — that it did not have for the KJV translators? And are you not assuming that since the KJV translators used "worship" to render the Greek word that they must be correct?

 

[Johnv]

Do you preach in Greek then?

Since I'm not a preacher, the answer is no. I read it in Greek and Hebrew, though.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Harold, I hope you have more luck getting these guys to answer the issue about the believing the Bible is inspired in the "original autographs" and how that indicates there is no inspired Bible in captivity because the original autographs do not exist anywhere on this earth.

Brother, if only they would stop long enough to consider that position. It will take the Lord.:godisgood:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Since I'm not a preacher, the answer is no. I read it in Greek and Hebrew, though.

Here it is in all three:

Strong's G4098 - piptō πίπτω
Transliteration
piptō
Pronunciation

pē'p-tō (Key)

Part of Speech
verb

Root Word (Etymology)

a reduplicated and contracted form of peto {pet'-o}, (which occurs only as an alternate in certain tenses), probably akin to G4072 through the idea of alighting

TDNT Reference
6:161,846
Vines
View Entry


Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to descend from a higher place to a lower

a) to fall (either from or upon)

1) to be thrust down

b) metaph. to fall under judgment, came under condemnation

2) to descend from an erect to a prostrate position

a) to fall down

1) to be prostrated, fall prostrate

2) of those overcome by terror or astonishment or grief or under the attack of an evil spirit or of falling dead suddenly

3) the dismemberment of a corpse by decay

4) to prostrate one's self

5) used of suppliants and persons rendering homage or worship to one

6) to fall out, fall from i.e. shall perish or be lost

7) to fall down, fall into ruin: of buildings, walls etc.

b) to be cast down from a state of prosperity

1) to fall from a state of uprightness

2) to perish, i.e come to an end, disappear, cease

a) of virtues

3) to lose authority, no longer have force

a) of sayings, precepts, etc.

4) to be removed from power by death

5) to fail of participating in, miss a share in


Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 90 AV — fall 69, fall down 19, light 1, fail 1 Thayer's Lexicon (Help)

The NKJV leaves out a very important aspect of the next action which is found here:

Strong's G4352 - proskyneō προσκυνέω
Transliteration
proskyneō
Pronunciation

pros-kü-ne'-ō (Key)

Part of Speech
verb

Root Word (Etymology)

from G4314 and a probable derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand)

TDNT Reference
6:758,948
Vines
View Entry


Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

1) to the Jewish high priests

2) to God

3) to Christ

4) to heavenly beings

5) to demons


Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 60 AV — worship 60 Thayer's Lexicon (Help)

I love the KJV! the action was an attempt to receive mercy and not only to reverence this master, but to play upon his compassions as well by the worship.

The KJV has it very clear and in full context, the NKJV is lacking, again.

If I fall down before my wife asking her forgiveness is one thing, but to begin to play upon her compassion by telling her just how beautiful she is gets me a whole lot further!:love2:

 

[Johnv]

Neither the KJV nor contemporary versions are incorrect. The question is one of what the words in the native language mean. In contemporary context, "pipto proskuneo" doesn't mean to bow down and worship. It means to fall before someone in humility, as one would a monarch or master.

The KJV renders it "... fell down, and worshipped ..." because the word "worship" in 17th century English meant simply "to honor" or "to venerate". In contemporary English, however, it means to "to give reverence to a deity". My old Dutch and Spanish bibles render the phrase "... got down on his knees and began begging...".

It's a simple matter of the English language having evolved over the last 400 years. To use this verse as a pretext for single-translation-onlyism is a fallacy.