Rock of Ages Study Bible

[Harold Garvey]

The KJV is correct and the NKJV is lacking.:tonofbricks:

 

[Johnv]

Neither lacks anything. The KJV reads correctly in early 17th English. The NKJV reads correctly in late 20th century English.

 

[sag38]

John, some want to make mountains out of mole hills. Neither rendering takes anything away from the context nor adds to it. Neither will keep anyone out of hell nor deny them any blessing or understanding of the text. Rather, it is just another attempt to prop up opinions.

 

[Jerome]

My old Dutch and Spanish bibles render the phrase "... got down on his knees and began begging..."

Which "old" Bibles are you referring to?

 

[Bayouparson]

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.

Mr. Johnv, it is still evident that the NKJV leaves out the word worship or does not translate it. The NKJV evidently uses a different Greek text here and that is the reason it is more akin to the NIV, NASB, and RSV than the KJV. This is clear from the study Harold posted. Since I don't have a copy of a NKJV with Strong's numbers this is almost impossible to prove. Maybe that is why they don't allow a publication of an electronic version of the NKJV with Strong's numbers. That is unless you know of one somewhere.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Mr. Johnv, it is still evident that the NKJV leaves out the word worship or does not translate it. The NKJV evidently uses a different Greek text here and that is the reason it is more akin to the NIV, NASB, and RSV than the KJV. This is clear from the study Harold posted. Since I don't have a copy of a NKJV with Strong's numbers this is almost impossible to prove. Maybe that is why they don't allow a publication of an electronic version of the NKJV with Strong's numbers. That is unless you know of one somewhere.

probably because many things would become evident about the NKJV that would show it to be lacking.:sleeping_2:

The Greek word is there which is most akin to worship in any day, the NKJV omits this for some reason, but it is not found where or why.

The rendering in the KJV shows a more full understanding to the parable.

Those who object need to argue with Strong's, must be why so many object to the using of Strong's because they know it's very hard to refute within sound reasoning:sleeping_2:

I'll stick with the KJV

 

[Harold Garvey]

Neither lacks anything. The KJV reads correctly in early 17th English. The NKJV reads correctly in late 20th century English.

The KJV reads just fine here in this 21st century, why does the
20th hold some precedence over all other centuries in the case of languages???:tongue3:

The sense is far better understood in the KJV in any century.

 

[rsr]

Mr. Johnv, it is still evident that the NKJV leaves out the word worship or does not translate it. The NKJV evidently uses a different Greek text here and that is the reason it is more akin to the NIV, NASB, and RSV than the KJV. This is clear from the study Harold posted. Since I don't have a copy of a NKJV with Strong's numbers this is almost impossible to prove. Maybe that is why they don't allow a publication of an electronic version of the NKJV with Strong's numbers. That is unless you know of one somewhere.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the NKJV does not leave out "worship," it just translates it differently.

 

[Johnv]

Mr. Johnv, it is still evident that the NKJV leaves out the word worship or does not translate it.

It doesn't "leave out" anything. It translates the phrase in accordance with the use of English of the late 20th century. The KJV translates the phrase in accordance with the use of English of the early 17th century.

The KJV reads just fine here in this 21st century

No, it doesn't. "Worship" in 17th century English meant simply "to honor" or "to venerate". In 20th century English, it means to "to give reverence
to a deity".

 

[Bayouparson]

It doesn't "leave out" anything. It translates the phrase in accordance with the use of English of the late 20th century. The KJV translates the phrase in accordance with the use of English of the early 17th century.

No, it doesn't. "Worship" in 17th century English meant simply "to honor" or "to venerate". In 20th century English, it means to "to give reverence
to a deity".

Johnv, this sounds like "dynamic equivalency" which is a fancy word for "politically correct" in biblical matters. Words are changeless unless one thinks they have to modernize the present spiritual climate. Spirituality has not changed since the Holy Spirit penned these words and used "worship." It is a changeless word and means the same now as it did then. Bowing the knee does not constitute worship (see Matt. 27:29).

 

[Johnv]

It is not dynamic equivalency or political correctness. It is a fact that the English language has changed significantly in the last 400 years, and will continue to do so in the next 400 years.

 

[Jerome]

My old Dutch and Spanish bibles render the phrase "... got down on his knees and began begging..."

Which "old" Bibles are you referring to?

 

[Trotter]

Words are changeless unless one thinks they have to modernize the present spiritual climate.

Really? So words don't acquire new meanings? So "faggot" only means a burning piece of wood? "Gay" is solely being happy? "Sham" is just a fancy covering for a pillow? And "run" has absolutely nothing to do with panyhose or computer programs?

What was written 100, 200, or 400 years ago was frozen at the point of time it was written and does not continue to keep up with the changes of language. The words on the page don't change, but the usage of those words outside of that page does. This is the point being made.

 

[Bayouparson]

Really? So words don't acquire new meanings? So "faggot" only means a burning piece of wood? "Gay" is solely being happy? "Sham" is just a fancy covering for a pillow? And "run" has absolutely nothing to do with panyhose or computer programs?

What was written 100, 200, or 400 years ago was frozen at the point of time it was written and does not continue to keep up with the changes of language. The words on the page don't change, but the usage of those words outside of that page does. This is the point being made.

Some of the word changes you mention are evil people trying to gain legitimacy of their evil practices. Run has always meant all the things you suggest, that has not changed. Word changes will always happen, but the original meaning is still intact. Society will always try to make words mean something different than the original meaning. The word of God does not change to meet the demands of people or society. People are to be changed to meet the demands of the scripture. Changing the words of scripture is a yeilding to the pressures of society to dumb down the Bible. Changing the words of the Bible does nothing to clarify the meaning, especially the matter we have been discussing. In fact removing the word "worship" does not clarify the meaning. No one has said anything about the reference of Matt. 27:29 where bowing the knee did not constitute worship but mockery.

 

[Harold Garvey]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the NKJV does not leave out "worship," it just translates it differently.

Yep, I'd say so, but it doesn't have the term nor its equivelent either, that's "different" enough for me to avoid the NKJV:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

It doesn't "leave out" anything. It translates the phrase in accordance with the use of English of the late 20th century. The KJV translates the phrase in accordance with the use of English of the early 17th century.

No, it doesn't. "Worship" in 17th century English meant simply "to honor" or "to venerate". In 20th century English, it means to "to give reverence
to a deity".

Only if you limit the definition as so many of you do.

The terms are synonomous as found in the KJV, the NKJV is lacking.

They are not the same. The context looses some of its value as we find it in the NKJV.

The root meaning of worship hasn't changed. The NKJV has changed the meaning of the verse.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Really? So words don't acquire new meanings? So "faggot" only means a burning piece of wood? "Gay" is solely being happy? "Sham" is just a fancy covering for a pillow? And "run" has absolutely nothing to do with panyhose or computer programs?

I'd be intewrested where you get the definition of a faggot to be a piece of wood? My faggots are made of metal and have feet to elevate the wood so it can get air underneath to allow it to burn effectively.

I don't recognize the slang term as proper English!:smilewinkgrin:

What was written 100, 200, or 400 years ago was frozen at the point of time it was written and does not continue to keep up with the changes of language. The words on the page don't change, but the usage of those words outside of that page does. This is the point being made.

So you think the word of God has to keep up with the depravity of man?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Some of the word changes you mention are evil people trying to gain legitimacy of their evil practices. Run has always meant all the things you suggest, that has not changed. Word changes will always happen, but the original meaning is still intact. Society will always try to make words mean something different than the original meaning. The word of God does not change to meet the demands of people or society. People are to be changed to meet the demands of the scripture. Changing the words of scripture is a yeilding to the pressures of society to dumb down the Bible. Changing the words of the Bible does nothing to clarify the meaning, especially the matter we have been discussing. In fact removing the word "worship" does not clarify the meaning. No one has said anything about the reference of Matt. 27:29 where bowing the knee did not constitute worship but mockery.

Ut o, you just exposed something: MOCKERY! of the word of God is what so many new versions do!

I wonder if we can ever re-educate those overtaken by liberal-mindedness.

 

[Johnv]

Only if you limit the definition as so many of you do.

It is YOU who limits the definition to 17th century English. You're saying it's wrong to translate a bible into 21st century English, but you have no scriptural basis for that.

... it doesn't have the term nor its equivelent either...

Before you accuse others of mocking or not understanding English, you might want to make sure you're using it correctly yourself.

I wonder if we can ever re-educate those overtaken by liberal-mindedness.

Single-translation-onlyism is by definition liberal-mindedness, so you would be the first to require reeducation to overcome your liberal-mindedness.

 

[Harold Garvey]

It is YOU who limits the definition to 17th century English. You're saying it's wrong to translate a bible into 21st century English, but you have no scriptural basis for that.

I hold to the etymology of words and you run amuck with any word brought under the control of it's slang which also walks hand-in-hand with the depravity of man.

The Greek supports the term "worship" in any day's use.

Before you accuse others of mocking or not understanding English, you might want to make sure you're using it correctly yourself.

Single-translation-onlyism is by definition liberal-mindedness, so you would be the first to require reeducation to overcome your liberal-mindedness.

Nope. Liberalism is a progressive attribute of modern men, of which you cling to with your teeth clinched.

The term "worship" still retains its root meaning and NEVER departs from it, not like the way so many have departed from the word of God and into liberalism.